backtop


Print 179 comment(s) - last by depravedone.. on Jul 13 at 1:01 AM

New studies indicate that nitrogen trifluoride a compound used in flat panel displays may have devastating warming effects

A new study shows that while current efforts may be making a positive difference in curbing CO2, they may be missing a greenhouse gas that may soon have far greater impact on warming.

The compound nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is a "missing greenhouse gas" that may have an impact 17,000 times as great as carbon dioxide, according to a new study by atmospheric chemist Michael Prather, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters on June 26.

The compound is used in the production of Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) Panels, in semiconductors, and in synthetic diamonds.  According to Prather, the compound was initially missed by the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty governing response to global warming, due to the fact that it was not widely used at the time.

The Kyoto protocol covered six gases, and nitrogen trifluoride was noticeably absent.  Since that time, production of the compound has grown at a frenzied pace due to the proliferation of LCD panels in phones, TVs, and computer screens.  More semiconductors are also using the compound.  According to Pranther, global production may double in 2009, to 8,000 metric tons.

The treaty left out about a dozen gases that technically were greenhouse gases, but were not manufactured in sufficient quantities to have an impact.  Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and of sulfur hexafluoride, which were considered, actually are projected to have less effect this year than the nitrogen trifluoride emissions.

The amount of nitrogen nitrofluoride emissions is expected to total this year to approximately the emissions of a smaller industrialized nation, such as Austria in CO2, the equivalent of about 67 million metric tons worth.

The Kyoto Treaty's failure to consider changes in industrial use may come back to haunt it.  Particularly ironic is that the chemical was touted as a way to prevent global warming.  Since flat-panel TVs consume less power than rear project or plasma models, they were presented as environmentally friendly.

In reality when the LCD market hits full swing, as is expected with the 2009 switch to digital television, the increased production will send levels of this new greenhouse gas soaring.  Worse yet, with 80 million analog TVs projected to be discarded by Americans in the shift, some older LCD models,  more of the gas and other hazardous chemicals may be released if they're disposed of improperly and merely tossed in landfills or incinerated.

Another piece of bad news is that the gas has a very long half-life -- staying in the atmosphere for approximately 550 years, with almost no ecological cycles to aid in its removal.

While carbon dioxide emissions remain a pressing issue, soon we may be hearing a lot more about nitrogen trifluoride if the study's conclusions hold true.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

C'mon everyone...
By DCGMoo on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: C'mon everyone...
By mdogs444 on 7/7/2008 4:23:49 PM , Rating: 1
And people wonder why the rest of the world hates us. It's because Americans are arrogant and insist the entire world revolve around their own wants and needs, the rest of humanity be damned.

Yeah, you mean like that $300B in global aid we gave, while we sit in the midst of a recession and changing our own lifestyles to cope with the risings costs of fuel and food?

Where do you enviro-nazi liberals come up with this crap?


RE: C'mon everyone...
By Ryanman on 7/7/2008 11:02:32 PM , Rating: 4
You're both exaggerating. The US is made up of a ton of different people, a lot of them who (like me) are arrogant and selfish about "losing technology". It's all we care about.

But like Mdogs said there are a ton of people who DO care about other countries and the global warming (even though I don't personally believe it). The goverment pays out huge funds for developing countries, even if their motives are only to placate the huddled masses.

Both of you need to chill. This sensationalist blog isn't the end of the world for multiple reasons.


RE: C'mon everyone...
By michael67 on 7/8/2008 7:46:44 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Yeah, you mean like that $300B in global aid we gave, while we sit in the midst of a recession and changing our own lifestyles to cope with the risings costs of fuel and food?

And here is a other American that thinks the US gives tons aid compered to the rest of the countries in the world.
Your wrong and i would say stop watching fox news

As i commented on this in a other post from a other article http://www.dailytech.com/EU+Court+to+Hear+Case+Gra...

quote:
Wrong on a few counts. First of all, you're using a highly misleading metric that measures not total giving, but rather share of GDP.
GDP Gross domestic product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_produc...

Imo that’s the right way as all other countries use that system as well
It shows how mouths money a country is willing to sacrifice of its total income to help out other countries that are in need.

quote:

Secondly and much worse, you're ignoring by far the largest portion of US giving -- private contributions. The US has by far the largest amount of private contributions of any nation on earth, a sum which far outweighs governmental aid.


That would be impossible to do for example in Holland given the amount the state is all ready is giving to aid, even do the amount given by private contributions and charity organizations in Holland is pretty large, but I cant give a Nr on that because its unnone to me.
Also its mouths easier for private contributions to out spend US government do to the extreme low a mount that’s given by it, if they actual really do, because to get on the same level as EU spending even excluding private contributions from the EU zone,
Because private contributions in the US count for 2.3% (2005) of its GDP but that Nr include all types of donations

quote:
$253 billion in gifts supported more than 1.4 million charities including religious congregations, schools, clinics, arts groups, food banks, and more.

(quote from document, forging aid isn’t even listed there) http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/...

So what he was saying is that next to the government forging aid about 15% of all American donations are given to foreign aid , just to be on par whit the hole EU, I really serious doubt that, and think that Americans that the aid that’s is given just as mouths is over estimated as what’s on the federal budget.

quote:

Nonetheless, the median estimate was 20% of the federal budget, 20 times the actual amount of approximately 1%


Also the US aid that’s given comes very often whit ties and /ore conditions, ware (and I can only speak for 100% shore for Holland) the aid (ore at least most of it) from the EU zone comes unconditional.

I would also suggest of reading this page: http://www.vox-populi.org/digest/faid_3.html

quote:
Overestimation

The feeling that the US spends too much on foreign aid seems to rest on an extreme overestimation of how much the US government spends on foreign aid. PIPA's July 2000 poll asked respondents to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. They were told that they could answer in fractions of a percent as well as whole percentage points, thus implying that the amount could be quite low. Nonetheless, the median estimate was 20% of the federal budget, 20 times the actual amount of approximately 1%.
quote:
when respondents were asked "to imagine the US economy and the European Union economy as if they were one big economy," and then to think about the relative shares of development aid to poor countries given by the US and Europe, the median respondent estimated that the US gives 60% and the European Union 40% (PIPA, February-April 1998). When asked what they thought it should be, the median respondent wanted a 50-50 split, with the US and Europe sharing the burden equally. (In reality, based on 1996 figures from the OECD, the US gave only 22% while the EU countries gave 78%.)

And this: http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html

quote:

The USA is only the worlds' biggest giver because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world:


I really advice to see Adam Curtis docu series especially “The Power of Nightmares” and “The Century of the self” I am pretty shore you would revise some of your opinions you are venting here, at least look at the first part of “The Century of the self” the worst that could happen is you wasted a hour and maybe you learn why I don’t agree whit you on a lot of other points from other posts, and ad best you learn something about the word you dint know (there are worst things ;-)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Adam+Curtis&...


RE: C'mon everyone...
By TheDoc9 on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: C'mon everyone...
By afkrotch on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: C'mon everyone...
By Ringold on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: C'mon everyone...
By DCGMoo on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: C'mon everyone...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's the fact that people saw this article, and immediately comments like "They're trying to take away our TVs and send us back to the Stone Ages" come up"

quote:
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion —- guilt-free at last!
—Stewart Brand, from the Whole Earth Catalogue.


RE: C'mon everyone...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: C'mon everyone...
By krwhite on 7/11/2008 2:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
People just post that kind of crap just to get popularity. They can't get it any other way. Anyway, great counter.


RE: C'mon everyone...
By masteryoda34 on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
Score
By FITCamaro on 7/7/2008 3:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
Another win for DLP. :)

Buy a DLP and save the environment.




RE: Score
By FITCamaro on 7/7/2008 3:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not advocating climate change since you all know my views on that topic. I just like DLP so I was making a joke.


RE: Score
By Icelight on 7/7/2008 4:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Me and my LCoS set will continue to further the global warming cause thank you very much.


Jason
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 4:56:35 PM , Rating: 1
Please stop writing these articles - you are completly trashing your journalistic integrity. I am all for covering both sides of the debate, and I realize that you see yourself as countering Asher's coverage, but the difference is that you are just putting out articles of pure FUD, and you know it.

I mean, seriously - is this "new compound" actually being released into the atmosphere in any significant way? No. Is the magnitude of its production anywhere near the same as CO2? No. Are there any studies that are suggesting this is any kind of problem or that there is even any measureable effect at all? No. Then what are we supposed to be all fearful about exactly? What should we do with this mis-information? Stop buying LCDs and go back to CRTs? Stop using computers? What?

I welcome and value complementary coverage, especially of controversial topics, but I am personally tired of reading trash like this article on DT.

I would suggest, however, that you seek at job at CNN. They, just today, ran a headline on their web site's main page that blamed the drought and plight of children in remote East Timor on "climate change." See, there is demand for your "talents."




RE: Jason
By Ringold on 7/7/2008 5:55:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
hey, just today, ran a headline on their web site's main page that blamed the drought and plight of children in remote East Timor on "climate change."


Oh, you know, a ruinous civil war, a government barely better than a failed state, high inflation, 50% unemployment and almost a total lack of modern industry has nothing to do with it. It's global warmings fault. :P

CNN should read its recent history at wikipedia or the CIA Factbook. It's a study in how not to run a country, just like Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's crop yield collapsed not due to global warming but due to, in their case, confiscating farms from white owners and redistributing the land it black laborers, who quickly degenerated the properties to subsistence levels. Zimbabwe went from a large net food exporter to rely on foreign food aid to avoid famine. Stories like that are impacted, at worst, only marginally by the environment.

Even in the 1300s, people knew this much:
http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/l/lorenzet/a...


RE: Jason
By SpaceRanger on 7/7/2008 9:40:58 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Please stop writing these articles - you are completly trashing your journalistic integrity.


You mean... He had integrity to begin with?!?


RE: Jason
By GaryJohnson on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
By Carter642 on 7/7/2008 3:55:50 PM , Rating: 1
Really? This was fit to print?

So it's 17,000 times more warming, and several trillion(or more?) times less abundent than CO2. Sure it's not a good thing to have floating about but statistically it's not significant in the least.

This is like telling people to eat veal because it will save the environment from all the methane the cow is going to fart out in it's old age. Pure sensationalism.




By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 4:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "So it's 17,000 times more warming"

The only problem is -- it isn't. The simplistic analysis of warming potential is based on the assumption that each gas has the entire IR spectrum to itself.

In reality, whatever one gas absorbs is something another cannot. Water vapor alone already absorbs a huge amount of infrared spectrum. CO2 itself is only capable of absorption in a couple narrow bands...and once it's absorbed that, its not capable of any more warming, no matter how much you add. And any other gas which absorbs even partially in that range also has its warming potential likewise reduced.

Nature abhors unregulated positive feedbacks. This explains why CO2 levels have risen so many times in the earth's past, and yet the planet still cools off and experiences ice ages.


By krwhite on 7/11/2008 2:12:25 AM , Rating: 2
Fantastic explanation. +1!


*sigh*
By PlasmaBomb on 7/7/2008 4:27:24 PM , Rating: 5
Global production is currently 4000 tonnes, that doesn't mean that all 4000 tonnes are released into the atmosphere. In fact when NF3 is used as an etchant most of it is broken down in situ to produce fluorine radicals.

Another point is that NF3 is replacing other GHGs, such as SF6 which has a global warming potential of 22,200-23,900 times that of CO2 , as it is more efficient . So producing and using more NF3 is a good thing




Just give up.
By marsbound2024 on 7/7/2008 6:53:52 PM , Rating: 3
Of all the things that seem to "inevitably" contribute to global warming these days, I say we screw it and just invest all our research and development into planetary air conditioners. We can't win them all.




RE: Just give up.
By krwhite on 7/11/2008 2:09:37 AM , Rating: 2
Air Conditioners contribute to global warming


all I can say is...
By Homerboy on 7/7/2008 3:31:33 PM , Rating: 3
wha-wha-whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa




Here's what got me
By WTFiSJuiCE on 7/7/2008 4:18:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The compound nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is a "missing greenhouse gas" that may have an impact 17,000 times as great as carbon dioxide, according to a new study by atmospheric chemist Michael Prather, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters on June 26.


It's speculation. Its like me saying like oh well, people's farts have become so toxic from all of the unnatural chemicals in the food we consume that they've mutated into a new form of gas that may be anywhere from zero to eleventy-billion times more effective in warming the earth and stays in the atmosphere....why th hell not, FOREVER!!

Now all I need is get some researcher drunk to agree to my story and then my EVIL plan will be complete!!! bwahahaha Well...and also print out a copy of my theory to send to Fox News.




...
By DASQ on 7/7/2008 3:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
Oh God, the massive synthetic diamond industry must be paraded by activists immediately!

...




Yawn
By Griswold on 7/7/2008 3:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
Look up Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Thats a much more potent greenhouse than NF3 (24'000 times stronger than CO2, lasts more than 3000 years in the atmosphere and is widely used not only in display production but also and mainly in high-volatage insulation of switching equipment).

And the best about it: its been known as a baddie for almost a decade.




Convenient
By batman4u on 7/7/2008 3:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
ok, i am a proenviorment guy but since OLED is coming out dont it seems that this information came just when needed? i mean, with the tech right now its not like they didnt know




CRT?
By GoodBytes on 7/7/2008 11:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
So wait.. is that polluting more than a CRT?




Who's doing what?
By Hare on 7/8/2008 12:38:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In reality when the LCD market hits full swing, as is expected with the 2009 switch to digital television, the increased production will send levels of this new greenhouse gas soaring.

Maybe the author should mention that when he is talking about the switch to digital television he means specifically the US.

Dailytech has a broad audience and there are lots of readers who have had digital TV for a long while (e.g. in Finland since 2001). Most of Europe has digital TV and lots of countries have ditched analog completely... and there are even more readers who aren't switching to digital TV in 2009.




By Hieyeck on 7/8/2008 5:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
We all need to agree with Jason on this one, it'll get him off the computer and DailyTech for good!




By Aloonatic on 7/8/2008 7:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
Surely it's about time hat all industries were looked at.

One industry that I find mind boggling is the fashion industry.

Fashion being (kinda) the antonym of recycling should surely be getting a bad press too?

Recycling = Take something that you (reasonably) believe has come to the end of it's life and reuse either the materials or the object for a purpose different to that which it was initially intended.

Saving money and energy producing new products, the resources that are needed and the transportation costs associated with all of this.

Fashion = Take something which is perfectly good and convince people that they need to throw it away and buy something new for no discernible reason.

Causing more energy and materials to be used unnecessarily, often transporting it across the globe after being produced in ethically questionable factories on the other side of the world.

This combined with the "snake oil" face cream/eternal youth nonsense which invariably are proven (in independent surveys on most of the many fashion related shows that my girlfriend makes me watch) to have very little effect but still take up huge amounts of energy and (I admit, I don't know the exact processes involve) no doubt require some rather nasty chemicals too.

Maybe these scientists involved in "skin toughtening" and fighting the "7 signs of ageing" (whatever they are, I just go by birthdays and calenders) could put there education and efforts into "fighting the good fight" and helping us keep the icecaps from melting and flooding us all?

As a guy, I guess it's just as easy for me to say that women should just accept that brown is not the new black (black is and always will be black, until I have a go at doing the laundry and then it instantly becomes grey that is) and that they should wear their clothes until they wear out, as much as people who aren't into cars can tell me that I should drive a tiny little electric car because I don't need 190 bhp when the speed limit is 70 mph and I am normally the only person in my car, and that I should use my old TV until it stops working as I don't really need that new big and shiny LCD HD TV?

Just a thought.




Thermodynamics
By owyheewine on 7/9/2008 10:05:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see the thermodynamics behind the claim that anything can have the kind of impact that is claimed. My old engineering brain just keeps saying bull crap.




Global Warming
By depravedone on 7/13/2008 1:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming is like a religion. You can't question it without the believers freaking out, and you can't believe it without the skeptics thinking you're crazy. Frankly I'm tired of the constant barrage of claims and no real solutions.

We need to stop and think before we do something like they did with DDT. Millions have died from Malaria since it's banning because we needed to save some damn birds.




Wonder if LED helps the problem.
By gochichi on 7/8/2008 3:29:22 AM , Rating: 1
Interesting that this turned into an America blog. While it must be hard to take this gas out of the atmosphere, it must also be really easy to greatly reduce its emmissions during the manufacturing process.

Unless carbon emmissions, I think this could easily be curved, if for no other reason that LCDs last 10 years, while a gallon of gasoline lasts one day. Again, when it comes down to targeting one or two things during a manufacturing process, I really don't think it's insurmountable by any stretch. It may give CRT a little boost, or even Plasma... but ultimately LCD manufacturing can be cleaned up.

We are so far away from complete "doom", it is actually quite amazing to me how much prosperity there is in the world given the huge human population. Our ancestors couldn't cope one tenth as well per capita, the cup truly is half full.

We can end the war, and we can end global warming, yes we can. Everyone of us could use less amount of electronics and fuel waste in our lives, every one of us.




Kyoto Treaty
By jaylettu on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Kyoto Treaty
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "maybe YOU SHOULD RATIFY IT FIRST."

Why? When even its most ardent supporters even admit it will have an immeasureably small impact on world temperatures, its critics call it far worse than that, why should we?

When you add to that the fact that nearly all the nations which DID sign are still growing their CO2 emissions faster than the US, it seems an even further misguided document.


RE: Kyoto Treaty
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 5:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, Bush's refusal to ratify Kyoto is one of the very few things I agree with him on.

Kyoto Protocol is the case when the medicine is far, far worse than the disease.

Not to mention ineffective. How is Canada doing with Kyoto? Europe? Not too well. China? Brazil? India? Excempt.

Kyoto is what is stupid, not Americans. We got this one right (so far). We may, however, join the ranks of "stupid" after next election. Hopefully not.


Stop boiling water!!
By cochy on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Stop boiling water!!
By surt on 7/7/2008 4:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
Water vapor has a convenient natural cycle for removing it from the atmosphere commonly known as rain. Things that stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years have more potential to be a problem.


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By cochy on 7/7/2008 4:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
When the cloud cover of the world reaches 100% you'll be singing a different tune my friend!


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By lightfoot on 7/7/2008 4:31:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Water vapor has a convenient natural cycle for removing it from the atmosphere...


You mean kind of like the Carbon cycle that removes Carbon Dioxide? Don't you know that natural systems are static and can't possibly adjust to changing inputs? We're ALL GOING TO DIE because humans have thrown the whole water cycle out of balance by cooking rice!


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
> "You mean kind of like the Carbon cycle that removes Carbon Dioxide? "

I'm perpetually amazed that most people don't realize that nature removes 30X more CO2 from the atmosphere each year than man adds to it.


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By Motoman on 7/8/2008 1:20:05 PM , Rating: 5
...forgive my potential ignorance, but if that were true then we'd not have anyone complaining about the effects of CO2 on the climate, I would imagine.


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By PrinceGaz on 7/8/2008 3:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
That's all very well, but the problem is that nature put almost all of that 30x more CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place. That's why it is called the carbon-cycle because it is a continual adding and removal process which is balanced (some of the carbon gets locked away as fossil-fuels etc, but that is balanced by what is released from other sources).

When man adds 1/30 more CO2 into the atmosphere, that is not balanced by what is naturally removed, therefore CO2 levels start to rise. Yes, as atmospheric CO2 levels rise, more will naturally be removed because the carbon-cycle will accelerate, but that will lead to more naturally being released also.

Whichever way you look at it, the fact that man is releasing extra CO2 into the atmosphere that had been locked away over hundreds of millions of years, has a major effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. It doesn't matter how much CO2 nature adds or removes, it's how much that we add which counts, because nature isn't going to remove it for us anytime soon.


RE: Stop boiling water!!
By michael67 on 7/9/2008 4:14:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This just in: Water Vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Better stop boiling water for making tea, pasta or other foods, because you're polluting the environment.
Water vapor is actually saving our collected asses.

But hell what do you care all that environment, that shit is costing you just a shit load of money its just better to ignore it!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rkJUJ5-PL-0


Another GW scare tactic
By mdogs444 on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By kattanna on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Scorpion on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By mdogs444 on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Relion on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By chrisld on 7/7/2008 4:22:28 PM , Rating: 4
The latest consensus from a survey of thousands of scientists is that they don't believe there is global warming. It's also pretty clear that NASA have massaged their data to make it look like there is warming. I know I will get flamed for this as I do not have an opinion that is in vogue at the moment but as I said most scientists who have looked at the data agree there is no warming (myself included).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_na...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By barjebus on 7/7/2008 4:59:55 PM , Rating: 5
I really wish scientists and the media would begin representing numbers in something that can make sense to the public at large. For example, saying that 62 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is pretty much useless to me, since I have no idea how much we as humanity are producing, but more importantly, I have no idea how much nature is producing, nor do I know what percentage of the suns energy is it blocking relative to other GHG's.

Since CO2 actually only accounts for like 3% of the GH effect (normalized), and since we as humanity contribute like 3% of nature's natural emissions, we're only really talking about humanity adding 0.1% to the GH effect. Add on top of that the fact that Australia is absolutely tiny in terms of population and emissions, and even if they accounted for 10% of all man made CO2 emissions (which is ridiculous), we're still only talking about 10% of 0.1% which is 0.01%!!!

Imagine if the media actually reported things in such a manner...if all cars in Canada switched to solar energy, we'd reduce the GH effect by 0.0005%!


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By FITCamaro on 7/7/2008 5:38:30 PM , Rating: 5
Very good post.

But no. They'll never do that. You can't scare anyone into change with numbers like .1%. It has to be some big huge number so people will be like "Holy crap thats a lot!". It might not be in reality, but a big number always gets a larger emotional response.

The number of a certain type of bird that was killed by hunting could go from 1 to 10. To a logical person, 1 to 10 is not a big deal (provided the bird was not extremely endangered). But if the media were to report on it, the headline would be "BIRD DEATHS UP 1000%!".


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Polynikes on 7/7/2008 8:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I think things are far too skewed by the media.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By ebakke on 7/7/2008 9:34:51 PM , Rating: 3
The media exists for one purpose, and that is to sell advertising. People watch (and thus, advertisers advertise) when things are dramatic.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By SiN on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 11:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you had read the article from epw.senate.gov closely, you would have noticed that the survey of scientific papers from 2004-7 revealed that, while 45% of scientists implicitly endorsed the theory that global warming is human-made, 48% are neutral (agnostic?). This hardly supports your assertion that scientists "don't believe there is global warming."
I am the original author of that story. When more than half of surveyed scientists (48% neutral + 6% explicit rejection) do not support a theory, the assertion that they "don't believe" is not inaccurate.

Now, one can argue that scientific papers don't translate linearly into scientists. However, since voluntary surveys unavoidably contain selection bias, a survey based on published research is about as accurate as we can get.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/7/2008 11:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
That is why I said "misleading", not inaccurate. I chose my words carefully in that post.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 11:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "Moreover, the 'neutrality' category likely refers to scientific abstracts where no position could be determined, thus leaving the possibility that many (or few) of them believe in the theory"

True, however the vast majority of papers in the 'believers' category included those which only implicitly accepted the theory, meaning many (or few) of them may not believe in it.

Furthermore, all one needed to register in the believers column was acceptance of global warming itself, not man-made global warming. Meaning the number of believers in anthropogenic warming is smaller still.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/8/2008 12:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
True, however the vast majority of papers in the 'believers' category included those which only implicitly accepted the theory, meaning many (or few) of them may not believe in it.


I grant you the possibility that the author's coding of 'implicit' believers may have been poorly designed. I did not read the author's article, as you had.

quote:
Furthermore, all one needed to register in the believers column was acceptance of global warming itself, not man-made global warming. Meaning the number of believers in anthropogenic warming is smaller still.


I'll concede this point. I was mistaken. Nevertheless, my original post is still correct in stating that the poster to whom I was replying was inaccurate in his assertion that scientists do not believe in the theory of global warming.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 12:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was mistaken. Nevertheless, my original post is still correct in stating that the poster to whom I was replying was inaccurate in his assertion that scientists do not believe in the theory of global warming
Rather more precisely, he should have said "the published research of a majority of scientists does not support anthropogenic global warming".

That, however, is essentially how the layman interprets the phrase "scientists do not believe in global warming"


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/8/2008 12:27:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Rather more precisely, he should have said "the published research of a majority of scientists does not support anthropogenic global warming".


You don't think that's a misleading statement? One would assume that if the majority of scientists do not support anthropogenic global warming, that they, then, reject it, which, seeing that you wrote the blog post, you know is not what the author was arguing. From what your blog post said, the author is contesting the existence of a scientific consensus. Would not the most accurate statement therefore be something to the effect of: "Contrary to popular belief, there is no scientific consensus on global warming."?

I know readers will see this as a sematical debate--purely academic--but it strikes me as a misrepresentation of the evidence, and thus is worthy of clarification.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 12:40:30 AM , Rating: 1
> "You don't think that's a misleading statement? One would assume that if the majority of scientists do not support anthropogenic global warming, that they, then, reject it"

Only for people who don't understand logic...or, for that matter, plain English.

Specifically, you have fallen into the logical fallacy known as denying the antecedent. If research doesn't support global warming, then it doesn't support it. Period. It doesn't imply outright rejection. In fact, no scientist worth his salt engages in outright rejection of much of all. They merely trot out some variation of "the evidence does not support that statement at this time" and let it go at that.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/8/2008 1:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
What I was arguing was that the original poster phrased his statement in a way that implied that scientists reject the theory of global warming. In fact, he said "believe" not "support". That there is a position between support and rejection (which I recognized explicitly in one of my previous posts by noting the possibility of scientific agnosticism) is beside the point. When someone says, for example, "I don't believe in god", most people, regardless of the logical fallacy you hilight, assume the speaker is an atheist. If the speaker were an agnostic, we would assume he would say so, as to prevent any ambiguity. The original poster's error was one of omission at best, and intentional misdirection at worst. His assertion that "scientists do not believe in global warming" implies a rejection, even if it is not logically the case. It does so by failing to note the neutral position of 40+% of the articles coded by the author. It is misleading for this reason. The purpose of the article you reviewed in your blog was to dispel the conventional wisdom that a scientific consensus existed on global warming. Why had the original poster not said so? I suspected he either misread the article, or was purposefully misleading his readers. I sought to correct this.

There's also no need for your snide prefatory remark on logic and English. That I was unclear in my previous posts, I apologize.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 10:19:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When someone says, for example, "I don't believe in god", most people, regardless of the logical fallacy you hilight, assume the speaker is an atheist. If the speaker were an agnostic, we would assume he would say so, as to prevent any ambiguity
I'm sorry, Delta, but you're still missing the forest for the trees here. For the average layman who wishes to know the scientific opinion on global warming, they merely want to know if the majority actively believes or not.

Whether the majority of scientist explicitly reject AGW, or they simply remain neutrally unconvinced is irrelevant. They still don't believe. And that's what matters to most people.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By GreenyMP on 7/7/2008 5:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think that they were advocating that we not suppress science.

Yes man has an effect on his environment, but until you can prove that man causes global warming, I am not sure that I want laws made prohibiting certain unproven theories. And by getting 3000 people to sign a document saying that something is true, doesn't make it true.

You are sick of us and we are sick of you. Great. Now lets all agree on OLED and move past this.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By TheBaker on 7/7/2008 7:17:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It doesn't know how to deal with what we do to it in such a short amount of time, respectively.


I don't know how to break this to you, man, but the Earth is not a sentient organism. It doesn't know anything. Something tells me it will continue to do exactly what it has done for the last 5 billion years: Spin.

Why not admit that the problem you have is that you think that YOUR future is somehow going to be changed for the worse if the Earth heats up? Personally, I wouldn't mind some new beachfront property. What's there currently is godawful expensive.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By rsmech on 7/8/2008 1:20:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What we produce isn't natural.


What's not natural about man? You forget how superior we are, don't mistake our faster evolution over other species as not natural. If man is not natural what is he? What we produce is from nature. The world has been dominated by many different environments or species throughout history. It has survived. If the human brain cannot be duplicated in it's complexity, what makes the Earth any easier? It's not a simple A + B = C. So no I don't have the answers, but neither do you. The difference is I don't pretend to know.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By FITCamaro on 7/7/2008 4:23:24 PM , Rating: 4
You might vote Republican but with that attitude, you are not one. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it doesn't have its place.

Yes there are plenty of people who don't necessarily need an SUV. And I agree, with the high fuel prices its dumb for those people to drive them. But to be thankful that these high prices exist because it rids you of an annoyance is just asinine. The prices are not just ridding the streets of larger SUVs, they are affecting every aspect of our society. In my family personally, my sister and her husband run an animal show that goes around the country. They've got two F650s and an F350 that hauls the animals and all their stuff around. These gas prices are killing them and they now have to charge a fuel surcharge. I'm glad you feel that their business should suffer so that you can be rid of large SUVs in your daily commute.

And in the end certain people still need larger SUVs. People with large families. Possibly with a boat. Why should they be punished for having a large family that a typical sedan or even a minivan won't work for? Yes smaller SUVs can hold 7 passengers now, but they can't do it while holding anything. And minivans really don't get much better mileage than large SUVs. A difference of a mpg or two isn't that big.

People with an attitude like yours are one of the biggest threats to our country that I see. People who think that because they don't like something, they should be able to dictate that feeling onto how the world should work. Of course some of you might be like "Well the US tries to tell other countries what to do." Yes, we try to punish other countries governments for killing its citizens, or supporting terror groups, etc. But if you can compare that to what kind of vehicle someone should drive, you have some serious issues.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/7/2008 4:52:38 PM , Rating: 1
I never cried:

1. To the government to outlaw SUV's
2. To have them banned
3. To have all of big auto destroyed

I asked for free market to get rid of the problem.

Perhaps you don't live in a large city where 90% of SUV's on the road are driven around by people that have - no large family, no need to haul large amounts of gear due to their cushy jobs, no need to go anywhere in the outdoors etc.

I'd say they are possibly fine for large families. I also didn't belittle trucks. My family owns a Truck (GASP), due to its utilitarian nature. Before you blast people like myself and pull the "He has a bad attitude, he doesn't deserve to be a Republican card," grow up for a minute (you usually are pretty grown up in your posts) and realize that what I spoke was an opinion and indeed offered nothing which is a threat to your nation.

Read the details before you preach the fire and brimstone and burn the witch at the stake. It is the mentality like which you just mentioned that would lead to the Salem witch trials.

But, I digress, what is the point. You are expressing your opinion. :)

Back to the city - most of these people who haul families around could do so in an Minivan or Station Wagon - while keeping their families just as safe or - *gasp* - safer than in an SUV... AND not put so many innocent people at risk due to their poor driving habits.

That is my opinion. I think they are stupid. When my family had the challenge of deciding between a Lincoln Navigator back in 1999 versus a Ford F150, the concensus was unanimous after logically thinking the process through - the F-150 has utility, it is useable via bed space, it was more practical and could haul far more stuff than a SUV could ever dream to do in a more useful manner.

They are dumb vehicles period.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 5:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I asked for free market to get rid of the problem.

They are only a problem because you don't like them. It's your personal opinion. And frankly, who are you to decide how people should spend their money?

There is nothing inherently immoral about any vehicle purchase decision. The entire concept of that makes no sense. What is immoral is trying to tell people they cannot pursue their liberties because they have a view that is different than yours.

We all need to stand up to the likes of you, lest we one day become ruled by the likes of you.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 5:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, backpedal... You said that big vehicles are a problem that need to be solved - that is not the same as saying you don't like them. If you don't like them, then don't buy one - end of discussion, right? What's the point of your post in the first place, except for the implication that we should all live by your values?

I'm open to everyone's opinion, so long as they don't tell me how to live my life. That's my job, after all, to use the brain God (or whomever) gave me and to exercise good judgement, in a way that doesn't deprive others of their liberties.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 11:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
I never told anyone how to live their life. I just said I thought they were dumb and am glad to see them possibly going away.

Or, as you suggest, I'm holding a gun to your head saying "drop the SUV now!"


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Dark Legion on 7/7/2008 8:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd say they are possibly fine for large families.

And then you say, in the same post, no less...
quote:
They are dumb vehicles period.

Little contradiction?
quote:
... AND not put so many innocent people at risk due to their poor driving habits.

And then you stereotype SUV drivers as bad drivers, when in fact most are not. You are simply pushing you opinions on other people, so do not be surprised that many people don't agree with you.
quote:
Try being more open to others opinions rather than telling them to shut their mouths.

You have not said a single thing that indicates that you are open to others opinions. You have only been pushing you opinions onto other people, while your only little compromise was the quote about SUV's possibly being good for families, which you contradicted multiple times. Many people do need SUV's for their everyday life, and if they can afford the gas, who are you to say that they shouldn't be driving them?
quote:
Or, we can let the pussification of America continue. I said something that wasn't PC so therefore I shouldn't speak at all.

This makes no sense to me. Care to explain it further, because i had no idea that there was a "pussification of America" going on.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 10:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
Contradiction? It is called a compromise and possible interlude to FIT's opinion. I still stand by the fact that they are dumb.

They are.

Station Wagons - worked fine for years. Minivans - worked fine for years.

I didn't grow up in a large family, but - we didn't have a minivan or station wagon either. We had two cars. That was it. On long trips we didn't need fancy TV's, stereo's or other things. We could read, talk, or look out the darned window and deal with it. Eventually the first gameboy was introduced and then we had that - but not until then.

Neither of them weigh 6000+ lbs. Take 6000+ lbs, and accelerate it to 80+ MPH and that is a LOT of kinetic energy.

Far more than say a 3000 lb car at 80+ MPH. Not to mention the surface area is much larger, the ability to control the vehicle in emergency situations is far worse than the smaller vehicle and the manageability of the vehicle is far less. I'm open to other opinions - there are a few here that are absolutely intolerant to logic and reason against their champion SUV.

YES - some people think they do need SUV's for daily life - but I'd say very few actually do need them. Especially in a large city like I live in. I see them very rarely filled to the brim with people. This is through personal observation. Useless mass draining energy driving down the roads creating a larger safety hazard.

Once again - large families survived for years without SUV's. If you argue people need them to haul cargo - what about Trucks? They are far more utilitarian and useful. What about Vans - once again they are far more utlitiarian and useful. I see very little utility in a large SUV compared with the alternatives.

Why have so many vehicles of this size on the road when there are more efficent modes of transportation to fit the bill. If they can afford it, fine. However, they are are larger danger to the rest of the people on the road in smaller vehicles. I'd say there are some SUV drivers who drive responsibly - but there are many more that do not.

Why give a blind man a BFG 9000 when you can give them a pistol instead. At least with the pistol they'll hurt far fewer people than the room-emptying BFG. It is simple logic man.

I don't care if others agree with me - but, I dare say my opinion is not a dangerous one when I do have clear, thought out reasons as to why I hold the opinion.

The "pussification of America" reference was to those who said my opinions were "dangerous" and "harmful" - which refers to to the attitude the PC crowd (Politically Correct) hold. In a PC America, you will not be allowed to say anything that could possibly offend or worry ANYONE.

In a perfect PC world, this would essentially equate to a complete stagnation of all communication channels due to anything and everything you say could possibly offend someone.

My opinion didn't state - hey lets go blow up a crowded room of SUV drivers. Instead, it simply expressed that I'm glad the free market system could lead to their demise for the most part.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 10:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
> "Once again - large families survived for years without SUV's. "

Large families survived for centuries without cars. They even survived without TVs, washing machines, refrigerators, running water, and indoor toilets. Since we can all survive without any of those conveniences, what say we ditch them all.

You first. We're right behind you, every step of the way.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 11:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
Cute logic train, you are very "cute" sometimes masher. I ditched the concept of large SUV's quite a long time ago. I took the first step.

Care to follow?

Or, how about this - stop breeding except to limited capacity and we won't have large families. ;) We'll solve overcrowding, hunger, poverty and a host of other ailments all in one fell swoop.

You first, we're right behind you.

How's that for "cute" as well?

Please see my next argument further down the thread.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By blaster5k on 7/7/2008 5:30:01 PM , Rating: 1
Is it immoral if the purchase of a larger vehicle plays a role in someone getting hurt who has a smaller vehicle? Or are they expected to pony up and buy a larger vehicle too, lest they be unsafe on the roadways?

While I support people's right to spend their money however they choose, I'm not sure it's quite so clear cut in this case.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By mdogs444 on 7/7/2008 5:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it immoral if the purchase of a larger vehicle plays a role in someone getting hurt who has a smaller vehicle? Or are they expected to pony up and buy a larger vehicle too, lest they be unsafe on the roadways?

So here's your thinking...

Any car is at fault for not offering the same safety to people on scooters/motorcycles? Large cars and SUV/truck owners are at fault for it because people have chosen to buy small cars? And semi-trucks are at fault to the people who drive suv/truck, large car, small car, and bikes?

So, since you cannot afford a larger car than a Chevy Aveo, I'm supposed to buy one too, even though I have the money to buy a large car or SUV to protect my family?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By blaster5k on 7/7/2008 6:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm saying the proliferation of SUVs that emerged in the 90s has made it less safe than it was previously for drivers of full-size, mid-size and compact cars. It has not to do just with the size of the vehicles, but with the numbers. Tractor trailer trucks are significantly larger, but they are also less numerous, so they present less of a hazard. On the other end of the spectrum, scooters/motorcycles are also far less numerous.

But anyway, I was mostly providing food for thought with that question. I'm not at all suggesting that everyone buy a cheap car or that all large vehicles should be banned.

Personally, I think in the majority of cases they're a waste of money, but if other people want to spend their money on transportation, they're welcome to do so. I'm a firm supporter of capitalism.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By theapparition on 7/7/2008 6:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm saying the proliferation of SUVs that emerged in the 90s has made it less safe than it was previously for drivers of full-size, mid-size and compact cars.

Complete non-sense.
Safety on all cars has increased. Many SUV's don't get 5 star ratings, while many sub-compacts do.

With all those "dangerous" SUV's on the road, higher speeds, more electronic distractions (cell/gps/ipod), and higher population densities, why have traffic fatalities clearly decreased year over year?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By blaster5k on 7/7/2008 6:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
The different classes of cars are on different scales. You can't compare a five star sub-compact to a five star mid-size or SUV or whatever.

It's true that safety has improved due to improved chassis, air bags, etc. These improvements come irrespective of vehicle class. It's hard to say exactly how much more things would have been improved if an 8,000lb SUV were instead a 4,000lb minivan. There's also the rollover aspect, but that mainly applies to the SUV occupants.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By theapparition on 7/8/2008 8:06:49 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's hard to say exactly how much more things would have been improved if an 8,000lb SUV were instead a 4,000lb minivan.

Nice way to distort the facts.
Even a gargantuan SUV like the Chevy Suburban has a curb weight of 5200lbs......not 8000. Curb weight of a Hummer H2, the heaviest passenger car that I know of, is 6200lbs. Once again, not anywhere near 8000lbs. What's more dangerous, a 4000lbs minivan loaded with 2000lbs of passenger/cargo, or a 5200lbs SUV with one or two passengers. See how your argument falls apart?

And by your same logic it's hard to say how many MORE deaths may have happend if people involved in serious accidents were not in those large SUV's. Once again, there is no basis for factual conclusion.

Yet the point is that with all these "dangerous" SUV's, safety has continued to increase, year over year.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 11:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
H2 - 6400 lbs
H1 - 6814 lbs

Suburban - 5607 lbs
Yukon - 6200 lbs
Tahoe - 5265 lbs
Navigator - 5872 lbs
Escalade - 5866 lbs
Explorer (getting smaller) - 4440 lbs

Ford Fusion - 3101 lbs
Five Hundred - 3649 lbs
Camry - 3263 lbs
Sienna (large van) - 4177 lbs
Corolla - 2530 lbs
Accord - 3124 lbs
Odessey (large van) - 4384 lbs
Subaru WRX (not really a family car) - 3045 lbs (really 3125)
Subaru Forrester - 3140 lbs

I could go on. As you can see there is a large weight discrepancy. The vans are ~4200 lbs vs. the large SUV's at ~5800 lbs. That is about 1600 lbs difference in mass.

Don't even begin to tell me you can't haul a lot of stuff in a Sienna van. You can - my wife's family owns one and it can haul a ton.

As far as safety - sure, you can increase the safety of the vehicles, and argue that they have been getting better, but you fail to miss the point.

We aren't talking about the safety per-say of the SUV itself. We are talking to the safety in relation to the cars on the road. When you take a more massive object and collide it with a smaller object, the smaller object will bear far more damage than the larger object (unless perhaps the smaller object is moving at a considerably higher velocity and is structurally reinforced. It is simple science.

5800 lb vehicle moving at 35.7632 meters/second (80 mph) = 1685986.334 Joules of Kinetic Energy

3000 lb vehicle moving at 35.7632 meters/second =
872026.61 Joules

You have almost doubled the kinetic energy. Now, granted, the KE builds on a linear scale in relation to mass assuming that velocity stays the same. Regardless, energy is substantially higher.

Now, take into account center of gravity. The center of gravity in a car is far lower than an SUV . This will yield easier maneuverabilty and ability to turn in an emergency sitation. This is due to better weight distribution and due to less of a chance of a rollover.

For an SUV it is 30 inches or greater. For a car it might be 14 inches or so. Add people into the SUV and that center of gravity increases even further due to the higher seating.

Center of gravity directly influences how lateral forces will cause the vehicle to react relative to its suspension, tires and the ground. Add in higher velocity and this only exacerbates the situation.

A smaller car with a lower center of gravity will react far better than an SUV at high speeds, thus allowing the smaller car a greater chance to:

a. evade danger
b. present less danger to others
c. stop faster (not COG related, but weight related)

The SUV, on the other hand, has far less of an ability to do this presenting a larger danger to EVERYONE ELSE on the road.

Lets go further and briefly mention suspension dynamics. Larger SUV's have a larger suspension with a greater distance of travel, creating more body roll. Body roll directly transitions weight to one side of the car or the other. Apply too much roll and the weight will shift considerably to one or two tires on the other side. Apply weight beyond a certain point and the tire loses its ability to grip the road causing it to break free.

Compound this with most SUV's being rear-wheel drive or 4wd and you have a greater prophensity to fishtail. Have you ever fishtailed a car? Have you ever seen a car fishtail? Have you ever seen a lot of people spin out or lose control of it because of this? I have in racing. It is not an easy thing to recover from for the untrained. Put them in a larger vehicle and it only becomes even harder due to increased momentum due to the mass.

You might quote statistics of actual deaths etc., but I am quoting in-arguable science. 90% of statistics can be made to say anything 50% of the time. ;)

Fundamental physics, however, are mechanical functions of how our universe works in a general scale.

The SUV's might be safer to the occupants inside, but they are not safer to those around them if driven irresponsibly. At least with a smaller car it might not do as much damage and - people in smaller cars have a better chance of evading danger.

So we have higher weight, higher center of gravity, increased suspension travel, increased body roll, higher kinetic energy - all of these compound on each other creating a greater danger to everyone else on the road. I could go on and list more examples but this should be a good start for you.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By theapparition on 7/8/2008 1:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well thought out reply, but still way off base and you still can't grasp the concept.

quote:
Don't even begin to tell me you can't haul a lot of stuff in a Sienna van. You can - my wife's family owns one and it can haul a ton.

Yes you haul a lot in a van. Never disputed that. Now, please see my previous post about the evils of a 6000lbs suburban (5600+400passenger) vs. 6000lbs minivan (4200+1800lbs passenger/cargo). In the end, they both weigh the same. Perhaps we should also limit how much cargo/passengers (and for that matter really fat passengers!) we allow on the road.

quote:
As far as safety - sure, you can increase the safety of the vehicles, and argue that they have been getting better, but you fail to miss the point.

I missed it?

quote:
We aren't talking about the safety per-say of the SUV itself. We are talking to the safety in relation to the cars on the road.

Yep. Don't disagree that car vs. SUV is in favor of the SUV, per science. But a car getting crunched says nothing about how safe the occupants inside will be. Many cars get better safety ratings than SUV's since the typically longer hoodline allows more distance to dissipate that energy. Collisions are far from being completely inelastic either, so going off pure numbers without entire facts is misleading at best.

Still, once again, the fact remains that will all the cars and SUV's and Trucks on the road..........MORTALITY RATES HAVE CONTINUED TO DECREASE, YEAR AFTER YEAR.

quote:
A smaller car with a lower center of gravity will react far better than an SUV at high speeds, thus allowing the smaller car a greater chance to:

a. evade danger
b. present less danger to others
c. stop faster (not COG related, but weight related)

Sounds like your making an argument that the small car is safer? So which is it. Deathtrap on the road with SUV's, or better able to evade potential accident situations?

quote:
You might quote statistics of actual deaths etc., but I am quoting in-arguable science. 90% of statistics can be made to say anything 50% of the time. ;)

But your not presenting truths, only loosely interpreted facts to support your conclusion. You see, I'm also an engineer, much older than you (guessing) and own an engineering company, so lets be clear right up front, you're not going to get doublespeak past me. On top of that, I race cars, so know a thing or two about suspensions too.

I guarantee, I'll out handle you on a roadcourse in an properly maintianed SUV vs. your car of choice with poor maintenence. Is that a fair fight, probably not, but illustrates that cg and weight only tell part of the equation. Half the people on the road don't even know how to check tire pressure, much less recognize worn tires. Suspension dymanics for most cars is sub-adequate at best. Tuned for comfortable rides, body roll is intolerable. Surprisingly, the large weight of an SUV or truck actually helps the ride, allowing far more agressive suspension settings than most cars. There's far more body roll in a Sienna than in a Suburban.

quote:
Compound this with most SUV's being rear-wheel drive or 4wd and you have a greater prophensity to fishtail. Have you ever fishtailed a car? Have you ever seen a car fishtail? Have you ever seen a lot of people spin out or lose control of it because of this?

4wd Fishtail???
Can't believe your making an argument that 4wd is more dangerous. RWD cars tend to be more balanced for most driving situations. No doubt that 4wd is superior for inclement weather, along with that though, the higher mass of the SUV is a advantage. When you need to trek down a snowy road at night, would you choose a 4wd SUV or a FWD Corrola. 'Nuff said.

As to fishtailing in general.....this is what I own.

'08 436hp C6 JSB Vert (stock)
'07 800rwhp C6 Z06 (ECS supercharged)
'02 1100rwhp C5 (ECS supercharged)
'00 465rwhp TransAm (Trickflows/Cust cam)

I know a tad bit about fishtailing. ;P

quote:
The SUV's might be safer to the occupants inside, but they are not safer to those around them if driven irresponsibly.

Show me any car that is driven irresponsibly. Is that the fault of the vehicle?

quote:
So we have higher weight

Which can be an advantage under certain scenarios.
quote:
higher center of gravity

I'd argue that minivans have higer cg's.
quote:
increased suspension travel

Is that bad? Can make you maintain control in the event you hit a really bad obstacle.
quote:
increased body roll

Guarantee there are plenty of cars out there with similar body roll.
quote:
higher kinetic energy - all of these compound on each other creating a greater danger to everyone else on the road

Yes, all combining to be a greater danger, yet.......

MORTALITY RATES HAVE CONTINUED TO DECREASE, YEAR AFTER YEAR.

I know I'm not going to convice you about "evil" cars. But try this. A simple look at the car enthusiest magazine of your choice will lead to several cars the perform worse in saloom and emergency lane change than SUVs. Is an SUV better. NO! But neither is any particular car. What's best is what works best for you. Who are you to decide what I'm going to drive?

I think we all get it, you don't like SUV's. Personally, I don't really like them either. But do I once think about my safety when I climb into a 3100lb car? Nope.

What I value far more than anything else, is respecting the rights of my fellow citizens to purchase whatever they want.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 1:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
quick reply before I make more:

4wd vs. rwd fishtail - sorry - I meant to only saw RWD.

I drive an AWD car and race an AWD car and I'll tell you it is a great compromise between fwd and rwd.

But, most SUV's might be 4wd but I doubt the larger ones can run in 4wd mode at speed. Our families F150 sure can't. I'm assuming most of them drive in RWD mode.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Fanon on 7/7/2008 5:41:54 PM , Rating: 3
No, it's not immoral. It's immoral to force everyone to drive the same type of vehicle under the guise of "it's better for everyone".


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/8/2008 5:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
mmoral: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immoral
1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.

Moral: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral – there are other meanings but this one covers the subject...I think...
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

Making everyone buy the same vehicle would not be immoral - really could be best for all - but it is taking away our rights and freedom to pick what we want. Taking away rights and options are not always immoral. Parents take away their kids right to stay up all night – that's not immoral, matter fact it's very moral - it is what's best for the kids and the parents are suppose to teach their childern what is good for them.
What would be immoral is someone who knows they are not a good drive, been in several accidents, many their fault but yet they buy a large SUV to keep themselves safe from injury even though they know if they get in an accident again there is a greater chance they will kill the person they hit because they are now in a heavier vehicle.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/8/2008 6:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
hmmmm... sorry some how missed that first "i" should be immoral not mmoral. My bad.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By dever on 7/10/2008 4:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure I'm willing to accept the definition of a term that's been debated for millinia to two lines from reference.com.

By stating that it's moral for parents to make decisions for their children, you're creating an analogy where some party acts on behalf of the "parent." In your analogy, who is the parent when individuals are the child? Society? Does that mean government?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Fanon on 7/7/2008 5:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I asked for free market to get rid of the problem.


What problem?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By blaster5k on 7/7/2008 5:20:01 PM , Rating: 4
I tend to agree. As a small car driver, I'm not wild about the proliferation of large vehicles for several reasons.

1.) They obstruct my view more.

2.) Headlights are higher off the ground, effectively making them high beams in my rear view mirror.

3.) They've promoted an arms race that jeopardizes the safety of people with smaller vehicles. My car can handle collisions with cars of similar size quite well and stationary objects quite well, but it will not handle collisions with a moving 8,000lb SUV nearly as well. The bumpers aren't even totally compatible.

4.) Larger vehicles are more unwieldy and require more care to operate. Many of the people driving them these days seem to have enough trouble putting them squarely in a parking spot, never mind driving them well on the road. This creates a hazard to me as well. Not mention that almost every ding in my car seems to happen when I park next to them.

For these reasons, and given that most of the time people don't really need the extra space, I can't wait to see them vanish from the roads. There's nothing wrong with station wagons and minivans for larger families. There's nothing wrong with borrowing or renting a truck when you need extra space (that's what I do). You don't have to own one for that odd time you actually need the space.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:25:38 PM , Rating: 1
> "As a small car driver, I'm not wild about the proliferation of large vehicles for several reasons"

Scooter drivers aren't wild about your small car either. What say we ban it also?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By blaster5k on 7/7/2008 5:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
I never said anything about banning SUVs. I was merely stating my dislike, which I acknowledge is relative. Scooters and motorcycles do have far smaller numbers than compact cars though.

Those with bikes and such do get the shaft right now. They really need their own dedicated lanes or paths, but it's also challenging to fit them into a lot of built up areas now. There's not really a good solution presently. I'd probably ride a bike to work at least part of the time if I didn't fear for my life. It'd be a nice change of pace.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By FITCamaro on 7/7/2008 5:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
I drive a small car too. I share the annoyances of an obstructed view and headlights right in my eyes. Do you see me hoping for an end to SUVs? No.

Nor am I worried about an SUV hitting me. I've managed to survive so far on the road. I pay attention to whats going on around me. If anything, someone driving poorly in an SUV is easier to spot than someone driving poorly in a small car.

People can buy what they want. Thats the way it should be. Fuel economy standards should not be raised to force vehicles out of production. Fuel prices should not be kept high to discourage their purchase. Which is what people like Obama are aiming for. He's even said it.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen." -Obama


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By blaster5k on 7/7/2008 6:43:05 PM , Rating: 3
As I sort of stated in my other replies, I don't propose any direct action to eliminate SUVs -- even if they annoy me.

We definitely need to be drilling and increasing the supply of oil to drive down the price. There's absolutely no reason to shoot ourselves in the foot. Alternatives need more time and will come along as they become economically viable.

I'll admit though, that I support higher gas taxes. I think it's more equitable to have people who use the road infrastructure more pay for a larger share of it. Differences in fuel economy versus axle weight make it not entirely representative, but it's a >99% efficient collection method -- unlike tolls. There would of course, have to be corresponding cuts to other taxes supporting the roads, or I would not be in favor.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 7:57:21 AM , Rating: 2
Good to see you using two different accounts.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Fanon on 7/7/2008 5:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
There's many things in life we don't need. We don't need television, we don't need computers, we don't need restaurants. We don't need our vehicles.

Be careful when you start making the argument of need. Most things in life we take advantage of aren't needs.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Jim28 on 7/7/2008 11:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly,

Everyone that says someone doesn't need an SUV, kindly unplug your computer and throw it into the trash as you don't need that either, and we don't need to hear your blather anymore!


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DeltaRage on 7/7/2008 11:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
The logical extreme of this position is that any excess should be allowed.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Jim28 on 7/7/2008 11:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
Society is self regulating in that respect. As it takes more money to buy bigger toys. The other aspect is morality and laws. Perhaps you forgot about them?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Schrag4 on 7/8/2008 12:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
Any excess that doesn't trample on other people's rights, yes. It's called freedom. And this 'excess' that you loathe provides much needed incentive. Otherwise, we would all strive to earn more money so we can...not...spend it.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By SiliconAddict on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Aloonatic on 7/8/2008 6:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
Re: free market and Oil in India and China.

The "free market" (if there really is such a thing) hasn't been operating (as far as petrol is concerned) in most developing and developed nations as their governments have been tinkering with subsidies and duties respectively.

India has been subsidising the petrol that people buy at their pumps for a while, so they haven't been feeling the effects of the global market changes. I think they are starting to realise that they can't afford to carry on with this strategy however and prices are rising of their too.

Conversely, in the UK (and I believe the EU as a whole) governments have been trying to control the use of oil through taxation, which is pretty high now.

I think that out of the £1.20 a litre we pay at the pump, some 50+p is fuel duty and 17.5% is VAT. It could be more on the duty front, they keep on changing it every 6 months or so and is different for different fuels, low sulphur petrol, city diesel and all that.

Anywho, the effect of the market is still being felt.

My boss was offered a year old top of the range Range Rover (Vogue SE, petrol V8) with all the toys in it for £12,500.

The dealer had bought 2 of them for £12,000 a couple of months ago as can't get rid of them, even at auction.

Mostly because they do 8 MPG and cost over £160 to fill up.

The days of the "Chelsea tractor" are over in the UK it would seem.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By rdeegvainl on 7/9/2008 10:04:50 AM , Rating: 2
Tell you what. Ask people who actually went to Iraq why they as individuals went to Iraq. Tally it up, then make a little chart. Then you will see why WE went to Iraq. Bush and congress (both republican, and democrat) may have sent the military there, but since it is an all volunteer military, and we are still there, seems to me like some people don't mind going at all. Asking someone of the street who didn't go to Iraq is meaningless. Knowing one person who didn't want to go is meaningless. Take a poll of all the military and then get back to me, cause until you got those kind of numbers, you have no real idea why we are going to Iraq, in 4,6, 9, and 12 month rotations, and sometimes longer. Then coming back home for half that time and going back again.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Fenixgoon on 7/7/2008 7:04:02 PM , Rating: 3
Sideshow Bob: Your guilty consciences may make you vote Democratic, but secretly you all yearn for a Republican president to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Ringold on 7/7/2008 4:27:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And... for the record, I typically vote Republican


Then as any good, pro-individual liberty Republican, surely you know it's none of your business nor concern what other people enjoy, from cars to porn to movies, etc. Unless you're one of those evangelical types..

For what ever its worth, I noticed this week that a Subaru Forester SUV actually manages roughly the same mileage (possibly 1 or 2 mpg better, depending on my driving style) in real-world testing than the 05 Camry I drive daily does. Between the two, I'd rather have the bigger, AWD Forester.

If you rail against cars as energy consumers, then you also have to rail against large homes, high-end personal computers, anybody who has an extra freezer in their home, probably most people with their own swimming pool, etc. It's a slippery, very non-Republican slope to go whining down.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Ringold on 7/7/2008 4:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly I don't consider a Forrester an SUV.


Right, those are all mini-RV's. The Forrester is bigger and nicer then a typical sedan, though, and I think are decent trade-offs between lower riding, less cargo space sedans and dismal gas mileage moving tanks. I've just about had enough of driving a sedan, even if a Camry is one of the larger ones out there!

quote:
Free Market baby.


QFT. Higher fuel prices have accomplished a lot of what environmentalists have said they wanted. But, I'd rather fuel prices be lower, for the sake of all drivers. Less money that goes in to the tank, the more that can be spent as disposable income.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By MrBlastman on 7/7/2008 5:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
I would love for fuel prices to go down in all honesty. It only hurt all of us, especially when we are feeling the pain of all those absurd Ethanol/Corn subsidies on the food side of things.

I think what bothers me the most about the larger vehicles is the safety risk to others on the road more than anything else. I see too many people on the road every day as is (Atlanta - we're like 5th in the nation for traffic, or is it worse now?) and can't help but worry about some of these larger vehicles being driven wrecklessly around the streets.

Having Autocrossed for a few years, as well as having driven on a track, I understand a little better that these big hulking masses can not stop worth a darn, can not maneuver worth a darn, nor provide a great deal of safety given that they'll just roll over and flip, or spin all over the road when their drivers overreact.

This observation is only magnified by my observation day after day of them tailgating people with no regard to the fact that they will not be able to stop in the event of an emergency and will cause a far worse accident. The driver yesterday (the woman on her cell phone going 80 with her kids in the car tailgating less than 2 feet off a cars bumper followed by 2 more SUV's) just left a bad taste in my mouth.

That was the purpose of my rant - not fuel consumption, GW, etc. I just don't see a purpose in every situation for them but am not about to tell any American they can nor can not have something because I think that is how it should be.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
> "...and can't help but worry about some of these larger vehicles being driven wrecklessly [sic] around the streets."

Statistically, your chance of an accident is by far the highest from a two-door sports/sporty car driven by a male age 25 or less, than from any large SUV.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:07:34 PM , Rating: 3
> "Honestly I don't consider a Forrester an SUV. The SUV's I'm talking about are.. [snip]."

Translation: the wasteful people are those driving a car larger than my own.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By SiN on 7/7/2008 5:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
You should have got yourself a Mitsubishi Evo instead! ;P

Its a better car.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By wuZheng on 7/7/2008 4:09:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Rid the world of modern day conveniences, lower the standard of living in advanced countries so everyone in the world is even, and force us back to mud hut & ride your bicycle to work days.


Aren't we a tiny bit pessimistic and/or judgmental here? Do you really believe everything said up to today about the planet's deteriorating environmental status and our involvement in that process has been "GW & liberalism crap" and propaganda?

If so, you're either amazingly ignorant or amazingly stupid. Most of the time, those two go hand in hand.

Just because an emphasis on environmental concerns slightly hinder the advancement of technology, it doesn't mean the end goal is totally revert our society a few hundred years.

The goal is that we continue to use and consume our technologies and resources RESPONSIBLY with regard to how it might affect our world in the future. And as such we have to take steps to make sure that our planet doesn't become a spherical greenhouse in space.

You can have your SUVs, airplanes, maybe not the oil but energy is definitely good, and flat panel displays. Just find ways to make them without making the enviro problem more complicated than it already is.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By mdogs444 on 7/7/2008 4:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really believe everything said up to today about the planet's deteriorating environmental status and our involvement in that process has been "GW & liberalism crap" and propaganda?


YES. YES. YES. YES. And just for the record....YES.

quote:
RESPONSIBLY

You mean, how you get to tell me how to live my life.... responsibly , by YOUR standards? Oh ok, gotcha.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Hive on 7/7/2008 11:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you are completely blind to what more than 6.7 billion people are capable of doing. Fact is, a lot of human activities are harmful to the environment. I'm not talking about GW here, I'm talking basic chemistry and biology that not even the most obtuse creationist can deny. Dumping heavy metals, overfishing, deforestation... that sort of stuff. Yes, the Earth is huge and capable of a significant self-healing, but the truth is there is only so much anything can take and we really don't understand how more than 6,700,000,000 of the most ravenous and powerful creatures the Earth has ever seen can affect it. That's more than 13 people per square kilometer on the planet, every one of them, oceans and other inhospitable places included. Perhaps the Earth will simply take it and not give a damn, but to arrogantly profess your certainty that it will be so in spite of evidence to the contrary is just simply sticking your head in the sand due to your "prosperity" addiction. Environmentalists are probably overreacting and perhaps the cure they advocate is worse than the disease, but at least they are not blind to the likely consequences of mankind's actions.

So, what are YOUR standards of responsibility?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Jim28 on 7/7/2008 11:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
What are yours considering you are posting on this blog using a computer that is connected to the Internet. If you think that computers are green and the Internet is green, you are real slow in the head.

If you feel personally responsible, by all means turn off your power to your home and walk to work from now on.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Hive on 7/8/2008 1:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, nice volleying of the question without answering and turning it into a fallacious attack instead. What I do or not is actually irrelevant to the point. If you take offense by being requested responsibility under standards others than yours, it is natural to expect you to propose some better objective standards that allow people to agree on more.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Jim28 on 7/8/2008 10:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
You dodged my question yourself. In any case it was not an attack, I took your question and tossed it back at you. I guess the potato was too hot to handle.

I don't feel I a responsible for GW or AGW.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Jim28 on 7/7/2008 11:24:09 PM , Rating: 3
I am sorry but that is a foolish thing to say.

There is not ONE thing that man can do that does not affect the environment that he lives in as he transforms the environment to protect himself and to live how he wishes. If we moved off of oil today there will always be something that tree-huggers are yammering about tomorrow. All tree-huggers denouce the very society that sustains them, as without the society they so detest, they would die, as none have the knowledge to live without it. What is worse, most are to arrogant to even admit it. It is a farce to hear them talk, even worse when the do it on a web blog! (realclimate.org,etc.etc, oh the hypicrosy! Don't you love irony!)


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By pillagenburn on 7/7/2008 4:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
you are correct. Global Warming is a mechanism by which socialism/communism (possibly fascism?) can be brought about.

It's really just a mechanism to undermine capitalism and allow the rich to get richer and the poor to pretty much stay where they are.

The same can be said for illegal immigration in the USA (probably many other countries with a lot of social programs, too).


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:19:02 PM , Rating: 3
> "Global Warming is a mechanism by which socialism/communism (possibly fascism?) can be brought about."

When the Dutch Communist Party disbanded in 1989 to merge into the environmental party GreenLeft, their stated reason was that they could more effectively achieve their goals through the environmental movement than their traditional means.

Truth is stranger than fiction.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By DASQ on 7/7/2008 5:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
And here gentlemen, is a perfect example of tinfoil-hatted ignorance.

This just in:
GLOBAL WARMING: INVENTION BY SOCIALISTS AND FOREIGNERS

MEXICANS OUT TO STEAL U.S. JOBS DECIDED TO SPREAD WORD OF MELTING ICE CAPS!


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Hive on 7/7/2008 11:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's really just a mechanism to undermine capitalism and allow the rich to get richer and the poor to pretty much stay where they are.

Isn't this exactly what capitalism tends to do, anyway?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Jim28 on 7/7/2008 11:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
Possibly, but the bottom tier of the capitalism ladder is far higher than any other. Wouldn't you agree?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By HinderedHindsight on 7/7/2008 4:42:09 PM , Rating: 3
You know, they said offering ridiculous loan terms to subprime borrowers was a modern day convenience that we could afford and they assumed these loans would be safe due to a thriving economy and an abundance of money flowing through the banking system.

And then this unfounded faith in subprime borrowers ended up biting everyone in the butt, even the responsible people ended up losing money (ie, the "haves").

Eventhough this is economics vs environmentalism, it's the same thought process. We want for whatever reason (modern convenience, more money) to believe in the modern world what the few of us do is without consequence.

No, global warming is not 100% proven, but there's more evidence showing it is occurring- and even more evidence pointing to the idea that man exacerbating the warming effect. And if climate shift does occur, it will affect everyone.

On top of that, we have the costs of producing energy increasing at very high rates.

This is denial and stubbornness in its worst form. First, our consumerist consciousness led us to be in denial about the effects of an overly free lending system. Now lets be in denial about an overly free energy consumption system.

Even if the idea of global warming had ZERO merit, the cost of energy should be causing us to find alternate solutions.

Modern convenience already has bitten the US economically. Let's just stay in denial assuming nothing will happen and watch it screw everyone both economically and ecologically as well.

This isn't about telling you how you should live, but about everyone contributing so that the few decision makers don't cause a problem that ends up messing with everyone.

But no, lets just call it unfounded propaganda so that we can end any reasonable discourse and keep living the way we want. When things go to crap, we'll just blame someone else anyway.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By cochy on 7/7/2008 4:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if the idea of global warming had ZERO merit, the cost of energy should be causing us to find alternate solutions.


I don't think anyone would ever dispute that. People are just fed up with this alarmist GW crap. Those people just want to make headlines, science later.

Let's see if we have another record setting summer. My thoughts, based on observations so far, is that it will be cooler than last.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By HinderedHindsight on 7/7/2008 4:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think anyone would ever dispute that. People are just fed up with this alarmist GW crap. Those people just want to make headlines, science later.


Hey, the truth is, eventhough my leaning is toward global warming, I'm tired of all the alarmist crap too, but for a different reason.

The reason why these alarmist headlines exist is because people chose to ignore the warnings in the first place because they saw no immediate effects. The same thing happened after the dot com bubble busted, and more forward looking analysts warned against the Fed continually lowering the interest rate to such low levels. They simply ignored it.

If people on the opposing/status quo side were more willing to have discourse on the issue, and sponsor honest studies (honest toward both sides, as both sides have obscured the truth in one way or another), you would probably see a lot less of this "alarmist crap" coming from the "liberal propagandists".

As it is, they do this to try to draw more attention to the issue.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "The reason why these alarmist headlines exist is because people chose to ignore the warnings in the first place because they saw no immediate effects"

I don't think that justifies distortion and outright deception, do you?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By HinderedHindsight on 7/7/2008 5:16:32 PM , Rating: 3
Did I ever say it did? In fact, if you read my post, it indicates my opposition to outright deception.

As intelligent as you might be, you really need to learn to read for context.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
When you implicitly blame deceptive statements not on those making the statements, but on the public's refusal to act, that certainly appears to be tacit approval. Which is why I requested clarification.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By HinderedHindsight on 7/7/2008 5:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
My criticism wasn't on the public's refusal to act, but rather the simple declaration of GW statements as propaganda in the first place. I am all for a discourse.

Yes, I did give a reason for alarmist headlines. But stating a reason for their existence (alarmist headlines) does not necessarily mean I agree with the tactic of deception.

But I do thank you for asking for clarification :)


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Jim28 on 7/7/2008 11:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
Stating a reason for existance is a form of justification.

If you have any integrity you will realize that no end ever justifies the means.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 5:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason why these alarmist headlines exist is because people chose to ignore the warnings in the first place because they saw no immediate effects

So, in your view, spreading FUD and lies is justified in order to reach the "correct" outcome...the ends justify the means?

I disagree. I think that we should all be informed about the situation, about the possible pros and cons, and about what can be done, and the cost of that. Then we can think about it and make a decision.

And the problem with the above, for people such as yourself, is that you realize that eventually the truth will get out, and that people will realize that GW is maybe a small problem, quite possibly something that is going to happen anyway regardless of all our possible actions. And that the cost to do even the smallest actions far exceeds the value of the solution.

Then how do people like you "rule" the masses if the FUD is removed?

Actually, I think you should start dreaming up the next so-called "crisis," because this global warming thing is starting to lose it's effect.


By HinderedHindsight on 7/7/2008 5:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If people on the opposing/status quo side were more willing to have discourse on the issue, and sponsor honest studies (honest toward both sides, as both sides have obscured the truth in one way or another), you would probably see a lot less of this "alarmist crap" coming from the "liberal propagandists".


READ FOR CONTEXT.

I explicitly said that I don't condone the illicit lies spread by BOTH sides. Reread my post.

I really hope everyone who asked me for justification for deception are not college educated, because they missed a substantial point in my post.

Either that, or you people just want to feel good about making a pointless point about the merits of deceiving people against a person who already does not condone deception.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Ringold on 7/7/2008 5:22:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
and more forward looking analysts warned against the Fed continually lowering the interest rate to such low levels. They simply ignored it.


You're treating a complicated issue in an extremely simplistic way -- just the way you're trying to color the global warming issue. Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

I understand the criticism on lowering interest rates; "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" is a common phrase. It's also hurt the dollar, which has bled in to the price of oil to some degree.

But on the other side of the coin, back in March when Bernanke came in on I believe it was a Friday morning, virtually everyone was quietly prepared for a disastrous, 1000 point Dow loss with a corresponding global sell-off. Instead, the Fed's rate cut, psychological more then anything, averted a crash. In the following months, the decline has instead been orderly. Whats better, a disastrous crash down, or an orderly walk down?

Further, where is the core inflation? Food is driven partly by our food-for-fuel blood trade, and oil is driven by global demand, both raising the relative value of those commodity groups. Core inflation has been stable, and some crops, like citrus, that aren't subject to being dug out and replaced with maize have actually become cheaper.

Where is the long term inflation expectations? While the Fed can play with short rates, long rates they can do nothing about, and they've barely moved.

Whats the historical record say? The Great Depression was partly due to the Fed acting as a commercial bank; as risk went up, it hiked rates, and a recession became a depression.

Finally, how's the economy doing? We're losing, what, 60k jobs a month? A typical recession would see 200k monthly job losses. It would seem that something has muffled the normal labor market blow-out.

It's also hard to draw comparisons with the ECB, as the Euro-zone not only lags our business cycle by about 6 months, but they also didn't have so strong of an economic expansion.

If global warming were half as straight forward as economics, these news stories wouldn't even be an issue. Unfortunately, it's all smoke and mirrors, with hidden agendas all around.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By FITCamaro on 7/7/2008 4:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if the idea of global warming had ZERO merit, the cost of energy should be causing us to find alternate solutions.


Last I checked many environmentalists were pushing adoption of LCDs because of the lower power consumption than CRTs.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By HinderedHindsight on 7/7/2008 5:03:46 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, another blind criticism. Big surprise

They probably pushed for LCD's prior to any knowledge of how LCD's were produced,or what was involved in the production, based on the manufacturers simple claim of lowered energy use.

Now, if manufacturers had done proper research on how their manufacturing processes affect the environment, environmentalists wouldn't have to dig this crap up on their own.

Or are you going to try to tell me that manufacturers are completely open to disclosing 100% of their operations? Especially the ones overseas?

Again, blind, shortsighted criticism.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 5:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, if manufacturers had done proper research on how their manufacturing processes affect the environment, environmentalists wouldn't have to dig this crap up on their own.

That's quite an assumption you're making there, isn't it? Seems like a blind criticism to me. :o)


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By HinderedHindsight on 7/7/2008 5:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
Can you find good information about the complete production cycle of any product?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 6:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, why not; companies produce environmental studies all the time.

But you're dodging the point, which is that you ripped the OP for blindly criticizing, and then you apparently did the same yourself, in the very next paragraph. Do you have knowledge of what studies the LCD industry did when they chose this particular compound as part of their process? I didn't think so.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Jim28 on 7/7/2008 11:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
You are foolhardy if you think any semicon industry (Solar panels too.) is green! On a product mass basis, semicon uses the most power, resources, and man hours than just about any other production method. While it produces millions of products per year, the cost per unit mass of product is very high.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 8:05:29 AM , Rating: 2
My point was the environmentalists do no research into what they're pushing. They see lower power consumption and jump on the bandwagon. They see greater fuel economy and jump on the bandwagon.

The Prius gets good gas mileage sure. But never mind that the total carbon footprint of producing the vehicle is drastically higher than that of a regular car. So much higher that it takes years to offset the difference.

Now its come out that these LCDs might not be as environmentally friendly as they thought. Funny though how I haven't seen them come out and say "DON'T BUY LCDS! THEY'RE KILLING THE ENVIRONMENT!" yet. They're pretty quick to knock cars and power plants.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 5:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, global warming is not 100% proven, but there's more evidence showing it is occurring- and even more evidence pointing to the idea that man exacerbating the warming effect. And if climate shift does occur, it will affect everyone.

There is also a lot of evidence showing that it is not happening.

There is also a lot of evidence right now of global cooling.

There is also a lot of evidence that global warming has been going on since way before we started to burn oil and gas.

There is a lot of evidence that global warming is a natural process, something much larger than our measly input to it.

There is also a lot of evidence that solar activity has a much more significant impact on global temperatures than CO2.

There is also a lot of evidence that global warming has potential benefits, such as longer food growing seasons and fewer people who die due to cold.

You can believe in your simple faith, but I think that scientists are telling a much more complex story than you are willing to accept.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By HinderedHindsight on 7/7/2008 5:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can believe in your simple faith, but I think that scientists are telling a much more complex story than you are willing to accept.


Actually, I think my open mindedness to the idea that GW might not be occurring shows that I am willing to accept any idea.

I think you missed the entire spirit of my argument- which was this whole tendency to live complacently and simply throw around this whole "unfounded propaganda" idea does nothing to help the discourse.

I acknowledge that whether or not man is exacerbating the effect of global warming is in question. If you missed it, reread my previous posts, I said "if" a lot of times.

My irritation is not with those opponents of the GW argument, but with the types of arguments they wield.

But again, I expected people on this board to miss the point of my argument. People on this board have a problem with interpreting what they read.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By TomZ on 7/7/2008 5:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see it that way. I certainly don't live my life in a complacent way. I just think there are more serious problems to focus on in our world, compared to "global warming" or "climate change." Yet I see the latter continually dominate politics and policy lately. It is a complete waste of resources that should be focused instead on solving real problems.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 5:33:34 PM , Rating: 1
> "But again, I expected people on this board to miss the point of my argument. People on this board have a problem with interpreting what they read. "

With all due respect, rather than assuming the entire world populace has a reading defect, perhaps you might entertain the idea that you expressed yourself poorly in this particular case? You're obviously an intelligent poster, but remember that even the best of us can sometimes fail to present a perfectly lucid argument.


By HinderedHindsight on 7/7/2008 5:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps I did in some ways express myself poorly- however when I say something like this:

quote:
(honest toward both sides, as both sides have obscured the truth in one way or another)


I think that speaks very clearly to the way I feel about deception vs honesty.

Plus, I have noticed a trend on this board for people to interpret your positions for you without asking for clarification. You are one of the few who has.

But now I will ask you, does that statement say I potentially agree with deception?


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Ringold on 7/7/2008 5:06:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Modern convenience already has bitten the US economically.


People really need to look up where and why sub-prime lending got rolling in the US, first of all, even if it banks did get too free with it afterword.

Second of all, our unique "consumerist" economy has created the most wealthy single nation in the history of man. Only the EU can claim a larger economic zone, but they do so with a couple hundred million more people, and even when China surpasses us, they will be doing so with about 4 people to our one. The "non-consumerist" economies of the world, such as much of Europe, have enjoyed higher unemployment, lower growth and lower income. The data and historical record makes it pretty obvious that if wealth and growth is ones objective, "consumerism" is definitely a good way to go.

In fact, it's not impossible that America could escape this century still being the wealthiest large nation in the world in a per-capita basis. China, India, they may both be larger in absolute terms, but on a per-capita basis they've got a long, long way to go. Europe has a shot to catch up, but not likely, and little countries like Luxembourg don't count; if Manhattan were an independent nation, it'd appear ridiculously wealthy, too.

quote:
But no, lets just call it unfounded propaganda


I'd suggest sticking to climate "science" instead of economic arguments, 'cause those were weak.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By HinderedHindsight on 7/7/2008 5:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I'll have to repeat my "read for context" comment again.

My whole point was about the idea of just citing things as unfounded propaganda.

I'm not even going to address the wealth issue you brought up because it's meaningless and has nothing to do with anything I said.

My point was that we were blind to the warnings of being overly free with economic markets, and it hurt us.

We're doing the same thing with GW by letting our consumerist urges and wants dictate our actions. Even if it doesn't hurt us ecologically, it's beginning to hurt us economically.

Is my analysis somehow faulty? And please, if you want to debate with my on MY points, stick to them. Don't go off making unrelated points. If you want to make those points, fine, but I have no obligation to respond to them. Some of the unrelated points you made, I even agree with.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Ringold on 7/7/2008 5:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess I'll have to repeat my "read for context" comment again.


Dodge.

quote:
My whole point was about the idea of just citing things as unfounded propaganda.


Which is something I pointed out you did yourself with respect to economic arguments.

quote:
I'm not even going to address the wealth issue you brought up because it's meaningless and has nothing to do with anything I said.

We're doing the same thing with GW by letting our consumerist urges and wants dictate our actions. Even if it doesn't hurt us ecologically, it's beginning to hurt us economically.


Cyclical recessions are normal. Are you construing this cyclical quasi-recession as some grand indictment of a system that has propelled America to the top of the global ladder? My point is that its clearly worked well for us, why would that behavior now be detrimental? Even now our unemployment is much lower than large swaths of Europe. And if such analysis is off-topic, then why did you even bring it up?

quote:
Don't go off making unrelated points.


I stuck only to the economic points you made. I stick to what I know.

Speaking of that, Nordhaus has written some relevant studies on the matter.

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By HinderedHindsight on 7/7/2008 6:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I stuck only to the economic points you made.


No, you expanded the point out into the wealth of other nations compared to ours, meanwhile I was specifically talking about what happened in the real estate markets and how decision making on the part of the few harmed everyone.

I don't disagree that our economic system works overall. But you cannot deny that even if this is cyclical, decisions made within the economic markets has hurt everyone substantially. And we are not through the effects of the current economic issues yet. I'm not saying that I believe this is a permanent downturn, but I will say that people who had confidence in our economy expected (read as: wanted) this downturn to be over by now. Apparently, false confidence can be harmful just like FUD.

The subsequent point is that the same thing can happen on several levels when it comes to our energy consumption policy (ie several levels being economically and ecologically).

And finally, that IF it does hurt us ecologically, the damage will likely be more permanent and longer term than anything that happens to us economically.

But, by simply calling things FUD, it does nothing to prove or disprove anything. It just helps people to live in denial. Now, if I'm wrong on that point (the main point I made), please let me know and show me an example of how calling something FUD helped any discourse.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2008 10:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "...and how decision making on the part of the few harmed everyone."

There are two incorrect premises in that statement. The first is that the housing market bubble was due to the "decisions of the few". Every person who financed a loan they couldn't pay was to blame. When you but a $800K house on a $60K/year salary, what the hell do you expect?

Secondly, the idea that "everyone" was hurt is likewise incorrect. If you're not planning on selling your home (or you don't own one) you're not harmed....except a little indirectly from the government bailout.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Ringold on 7/8/2008 6:48:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, you expanded the point out into the wealth of other nations compared to ours


In response to an apparent indictment of our system, which includes cyclical recessions, I compared it to competing systems with more government control. I fail to see how that is out of bounds.

quote:
but I will say that people who had confidence in our economy expected (read as: wanted) this downturn to be over by now.


Masher already pointed out one good logical error, but here's a factual one. You did well not to call it a recession by name, as the economy is still expanding; the ISM and personal income numbers looked good, for example, so the cards are lining up for GDP growth in Q2.

Regardless, asides from a garden variety of outliers the general consensus has been, even from sunny Reagan-loving red-blooded supply-side economists that wake up and smell roses every morning, that the economy wouldn't collapse (it has not, and shows no signs of doing so), and growth would be flat to slightly negative or positive for the rest of this year. For 2009, there is divergence, but the consensus estimates are for lower than normal growth next year.

http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displa...

I could also ask what it is you think economists said would be over exactly to begin with, as there has been no economic contraction, just low-skilled laborers primarily getting dumped. Unemployment is still fairly low; it was, until recently, at "full employment," or only frictional unemployment.

Meanwhile, I'll point out that some, possibly with political motives since it is an election year, have been calling for disaster starting in Q4 07. Q4 was hot; at first they didn't believe it. Then Q1 came out; didn't believe that either, and a NBER idiot even said he thought both Q4 and Q1 would be revised negative. Instead, Q1 was revised up, way up. The bears have been spectacularly wrong for close to a year!

quote:
but you cannot deny that even if this is cyclical, decisions made within the economic markets has hurt everyone substantially.


Of course it's cyclical, it's a practical perfect text-book case. Also, the pain being spread is in fact designed in to the modern finance system. With free international trade/investment flows, European banks invest in US assets, and vice versa. Instead of Citigroup and BoA, for example, having all the mortgages explode and annihilating the US banking system, the risk, and thus suffering, was spread globally.

quote:
Apparently, false confidence can be harmful just like FUD.


Ultimately, what if the consensus opinion was wrong anyway? There was excess supply relative to demand. Pundits can spin their wheels all they want, but that problem must always resolve itself. Fact is, some people saw it coming, and setup funds to buy distresses asset-backed securities in advance, softening the blow to banks balance sheets. Profiting while providing a public service; capitalism!

If what you are getting at is that business leaders should see problems out in the future and turn massive companies on a dime to correct them, well, you tell us how to do it, and you could probably earn yourself a Nobel prize in economics.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By sgw2n5 on 7/7/2008 5:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be the first to admit, global warming is a phenomena that is partially understood at best. I prefer "global climate change". It is undeniable that the climate is changing, the deltas between high and low temps are increasing and at quicker intervals than previously measured (we have only had reliable instruments to measure these data points for a mere ~130 years).

It is undeniable that we (humans) are dumping gargantuan amounts of C02 into the atmosphere, as well a variety of neat-o halogenated amine and carbon compounds, but I am somewhat unconvinced that we are contributing greatly to global climate change.

Relative to other "natural" factors, humanity has sort of a pompous, self-important attitude towards these matters. 1 single volcano of the magnitude of St. Helen's releases more C02 and sulfonated aryl compounds than we have made in our entire industrial history. That's a fact.

I'm not arguing that global climate change isn't happening, indeed it is. I just argue that humanity is not the driving force behind it. On the same note, i'm not advocating rampant pollution either. Global climate change is an extremely complex natural phenomena, and before anybody passes legislation that could be potentially crippling to industry or economies, we would have to understand it better. That being said, some things are obviously a bad idea (try taking a deep breath in downtown Beijing) and should be partially regulated, just not to the detriment of the economy.

Also (this applies to mdogs444)- nearly every one of your posts about any subject at all include anti-liberal rhetoric. You do realize, if it weren't for those dirty libs, you and me both would be working 90 hr work weeks in filthy, contaminated work zones, probably along side children, only to go home late at night and enjoy a nice shower in water whilst a variety of chemical and biological contaminants wreak havoc on our bodies... you get the point i'm sure. It seems as if some liberal must have pissed in your cheerios today (every day).

If anything, i'd consider myself to be a staunch libertarian, and I hate unnecessary regulation and bloated government (especially on my tax dime), but I do think it is prudent to take care of our environment where it makes good scientific sense to do so.

For whatever reason DT is chock freakin full of this ridiculous us vs. them mentality.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Jim28 on 7/7/2008 11:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
The reason for that additude is because of the typical
need for "liberals" to legislate away your personal freedom for the percieved good of the many. (Typically with unfounded causes such as AGW.) The only real attacking being done is by the left on a typical American. Listen to folks like Obama yourself. If you can't figure it out, listen to him until you do.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By kotix on 7/7/2008 6:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
critics of GW and its 'scare tactics' strategy should be just as critical toward this 'war on terror & WMDs'


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By Jim28 on 7/7/2008 11:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Who says they aren't?

However being critical is not the same as
advicating no action at all. Stop drinking the koolaid!


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By SiliconAddict on 7/8/2008 1:15:03 AM , Rating: 1
So I guess you have all the answers already right? Dumbass. Research progresses....what? You think we knew that CFC's were bad for the ozone when we first started using them? how about agent orange? the world has a history of inventing all kinds of nifty shit only to find out it screws the planet up later on. Instead there are morons who scream like the trained brainless chips that they are that its some huge conspiracy....'tard.


RE: Another GW scare tactic
By bpurkapi on 7/8/2008 1:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
Either way, we won't give up our conveniences. I live my life the way I think is best as do countless billions. I'm concerned about the environment, but that is not why I ride a bike to work. Its because I need the damn exercise. Point is that I get painted as a liberal bike nazi, when really I'm just vain and care how my body looks. Many folks point the finger at "liberals" or "conservatives" as the reason behind something bad. Most of the time the finger pointing is useless, and just a way to blow off steam. I figure one of these days we'll stop pointing fingers and actually realize we can get a lot more done by not getting angry and live our lives in a happy manner. To each their own, and lets keep it that way. Its corny, but Gandhi said it well: "Be the change you wish for in the world." Freedom means you do what you think is right, and so do I. So if you hate freedom tell me how I should live...


Jason...
By mdogs444 on 7/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Jason...
By EntreHoras on 7/7/2008 4:08:18 PM , Rating: 1
Please let me know which theory is 100% proven.

A theory 100% proven is called "fact".


RE: Jason...
By lightfoot on 7/7/2008 4:43:22 PM , Rating: 3
The problem with the "theory" of Global Warming is that it is not in fact a scientific theory. GW is currently an opinion that corresponds to some of the data points (but not all of them.) The greenhouse effect is a scientific theory and all life on earth depends upon it - the question of GW is whether human emissions are the primary cause of increased warming and if humans are making it worse. There is a huge leap of logic to go from "the greenhouse effect is real" to "the world is ending" and "it's our fault." That leap of logic is what makes it opinion and not theory.


RE: Jason...
By AntiM on 7/7/2008 4:21:14 PM , Rating: 1
Global warming is an undeniable fact. Whether it's manmade or natural is debatable. Most climatologists say it's caused by excessive CO2 gasses being released due to the burning of fossil fuels. Those companies that make profits by selling fossil fuels say it's either caused by natural forces or it's just a figment of everyone's imagination and they shouldn't worry about it.
It may be a combination of the 2. I doubt there's much we can do to stop it now. We might as well party and live it up while we can.


RE: Jason...
By FITCamaro on 7/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Jason...
By mmntech on 7/7/2008 6:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
There's definitely a lot of this kind of false information going around. What never ceases to amaze me is the sheer amount of evidence that has shown pro-AGW data estimates have been either way off or blatantly falsified (re: the infamous hockey stick graph) yet the general public still goes along with it. It just proves how stupid people are to just accept whatever drivel people like Al Gore and the liberal media spoon feeds them. It has somehow become the politically correct thing to do. And they call us the deniers.

To AntiM's first point, there are many climatologists out there that don't support the pro-anthropogenic global warming argument. They just don't receive the same kind of media attention because the media like doom & gloom. Also, they tend to get stifled by the powers that be in groups such as the IPCC

To the second point, climatologists, eco-businesses and environmentalists are making huge amounts of money from a pro-AGW world as scared stiff people race to stop this "problem". Let's not forget how much governments stand to get from carbon taxes on fuel.

The environmentalists will have to pry my HDTV out of my cold, dead hands before they get it.


RE: Jason...
By AntiM on 7/7/2008 9:30:25 PM , Rating: 4
Your statements that my statements are untrue, are untrue.


RE: Jason...
By Jim28 on 7/7/2008 11:04:07 PM , Rating: 1
Gee that was deep!
Care to elaborate a little?


RE: Jason...
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 8:10:58 AM , Rating: 1
Show me that your statements are true then. Many climatologists support the theory. Many others do not. In fact support for it is waning.

The term "most" indicates the large majority. No such majority of agreement on the issue exists.

For your second statement, you imply that the oil industry is attempting to cover it up. No such cover up exists.


RE: Jason...
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 8:17:57 AM , Rating: 1
And as mmntech points out, those who support man-made global warming are profiting far more by doing so than those who do not support it.

Man-made global warming research and initiatives to fight it are a billions of dollars a year market. Look at these carbon credit companies. What are they selling? Does anyone actually know? No. As he also points out, governments stand to make tens of billions in carbon fees. Hurray! More money to put into socialist programs!


RE: Jason...
By Aloonatic on 7/8/2008 5:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
Are we still using the term "Global Warming"?

In the UK it is hardly used any more and has been cunningly replaced with the "Climate Change" (or Man Made Climate Change for the true believers) because we all know that the climate and weather is a wholly predictable and stable beast that does the same thing every day/month/year and the fact that it is changing only proves environmentalists right???

I think that GW was changed to CC because of a couple of factors.

1) You can't really lose, warmer = change, colder = change, and as we all know, change = end of the world as we know it.

2) Last summer was pretty cold as it looks like this summer will be (in the UK at least) so people wont believe the Global Warming message/preaching.

3) People in the UK were quite looking forward to warmer weather as most of us moan that it's too cold here and didn't take the prospect of having weather similar to the south of France all year round seriously, or as a bad thing for that matter.

None of this has anything to do with the end of cheap oil/energy, the changing global economic balance of power or that it's conveniently stifling competition from developing nations.


RE: Jason...
By UNHchabo on 7/8/2008 12:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of the intro to Jeremy Clarkson's video "Supercar Showdown":

quote:
A six-degree rise in temperature would give us a climate like the south of Spain. This means there'll be palmtrees around our shores. Bougainvillea will cascade from everyone's balcony and the sky will be permanently blue. It all sounds pretty good to me, so plainly what we need are more bigger, faster cars.


And later on when he's driving a G-Wiz:

quote:
And the stupid thing is that you drive this thing to save the world. Look what it's done to the weather! We used to have really nice summers in England, now people are driving around in these, it's pouring with rain! Go buy a Range Rover and warm this country up again!


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki