Karl on Cars

Hi Savetheland,
 
Interesting thing about string theory. I didn't know it's no longer accepted......
 
"Global Warming crowd is even worse because string theory proponents are scientists and very bright people after all, they just temporarily blinded by beauty of theory and sooner or later can be convinced. Global Warming crowd is the bunch of politicians who intentinally use Global Warming for their own advantage and crowd of not so bright people who are ignorant about what they are talking about and who deny any scientific opinion or FACT that does not agree with their faith."
 
So, are you saying that man-made global-warming (MMGW) as a theory was not introduced or invented by scientists, but by politicians? Are you telling me that there are no scientists who support MMGW? Are you saying there are no published scientific articles in favour of MMGW? I find that hard to believe....... Tell me more! Maybe I'm ignorant......
 
And savetheland and george2040, generally speaking I don't see MMGW as a political advantage. Look at the presidential candidates now. They mostly talk about Iraq, health care and who has the experience. I've barely heard anything about MMGW! MMGW wasn't much of an issue in 2004 either!
 
George2040, don't get me wrong: I don't LIKE or LOVE taxes. And I honestly think fuel is expensive enough...I certainly wouldn't be thrilled about paying more! But I know human nature and people will not opt for fuel efficient vehicles, unless there are financial implications. Taxing fuel heavily will force people to buy efficient cars and manufacturers to build more efficient cars! Since MMGW is such a big problem, I feel that whatever inconvenience such taxes will cause pales in comparison with the consequences of MMGW.
 
And, george, taxation like this is not a new concept in the US, and it CAN work in the US. I live in Lubbock, TX, and the city has started charging exhorbitant rates on water, especially between 4 and 6pm.....so as to discourage wasteful water use. For years they made adverts about how Lubbock needs to conserve water and it didn't work.....because water didn't cost much. So by raising water rates and passing other regulations (eg, limits to watering lawns), they've succesfully limited (wasteful) water use. The same can be done with fuel in the US and it will work.
Mind you, Lubbock is a very conservative area and people are loathe to taxes, but nobody is complaning about the city's water rates.

Karl: "Pesonally, I prefer laughing at the bell-bottom wearing sheep even before they attain self recognition of their mistake."
 
It's one thing to dispute global warming, but it's another to insult people who believe it's happening as "sheep" -- especially those who are doing the research. I suppose all of the scientists who have been gathering and analyzing data are self-delusional? It's either that or one huge conspiracy, according to you.
 
Sorry Karl -- people deserve more respect than that. The jury may still be out on global warming, but that doesn't make anyone a sheep in the meantime -- especially not someone who is more of an expert in the field than you or I.

i wont mention who I work for. But its in the mining business and some of that business is coal.
 
when you hear the ceo talk about 'green' issues you know its all about pr.
 
as for coal the current coal liquafication (ie take coal turn into a oil like fuel), is just as promising as current corn to fuel production (which is one of the worst ideas man has ever came up with, can we not use food to power our cars?!)
 
One of the reasons I disagree with tax increases is that we already see the effect of higher engery costs on americans have little effect. i.e. our gas prices went up 50%+ in about a year. And we are still driving as much.
 
If you add another dollar? or 2 of tax on it, thats 150 to 300 BILLION dollars of taxes a year. Thats 300 BILLON dollars a year that you and I cannot spend on anything else. A few less toys, a few short trips etc.
 
This year retail stores and the finance community are going nuts over slower sales, which on average would be a cut of 6 dollars a person. imange the pain your are proposing on the economy in general if you tax gas.
 
And why stop at gas if you want to tax it more. Lets double the tax on electricty, if we make that high enough people will use less. Lets tax natural gas at a much higher proportion too, then people will use less natural gas as well.
 
where do you stop? how much lifestyle control do you want the goverment to have?
 
What do you enjoy doing? do you like to ski? maybe that uses alot of energy lets tax that to high heavens.
 
You like food, some global warming theorys have cow gas as being more global warming then co2 (and methane as a gas is a much much large component of global tempratures then C02)
 
So lets add a dollar or 2 tax per pound on meat. Wow you can get skinnery people, and fewer cows and help the goverment.
 
If you are going to start taxing why just stop at cars... Why not go everywhere

The politicization of this blog has run me off. Cya guys, have fun.

umm the topic of this blog entery is polictical, hard for the discussion not to be

While reading this blog it downed to me that GW is another attempt to establish new totalitarian global government (read world domination) by Europeans.
 
First time it was Roman Empire. After that most attempts to establish global government were based on Christian faith (like Holy Roman Empire). Germans tried many times to do this with or without brut force. Fascism is a good example or recent attempt by Germans to unite world under global oppressive government. Germans also invented Communism and participated in Russian led attempt to crash existing governments over the world and rule the world from one center – Moscow.
 
Finally in the end Germans succeeded. They accomplished by deceiving what they could not do by using brute force – establishing European transnational Government in Brussels. Global Warming is a new attempt – now to control big independent countries (and former colonies) like USA, China, Russia and India – big countries independent of European control. These countries are developing very fast and starting to dominate world and making Europe irrelevant relic of past. Global Warming is the new way to restore European domination of world, the new attempt to knock out USA, Russia and China as the leading world powers.
 
What do you thing about my interpretation of Global Warming?

I'll clarify. The posts in these threads are personal, angry, and disrespectful. They used to be an occasional break from talking about cars, but now it's at least a weekly event to be called any number of insults by a number of posters, including the Editor in Chief of Edmunds.com.
 
That's fine in a personal blog, and this is one. But it's also an Edmunds.com blog, and a number of us were attracted here by that fact. Now the industry insight isn't enough for me to feel entertained by coming here, its target audience has moved away from what I'm looking for. Nothing wrong with that, I'm sure I'll run into a lot of you guys in other places.
 
Happy New Year!

Happy New year to you too.
 
Blackadder, string theory never really was accepted by physicists as a true theory. It is more like set of assumptions. Many things are not even proven, there are no solvable equations and finally there is no theory per se. As can I see you have misconception about string theory assuming that it is truth widely accepted by scientists. Misconception about GW is of same nature – GW fanatics are not scientists and have no idea what GW is. String theory advanced mathematics much more than physics.
 
One problem with string theory is that it does not include quantum gravity. Any true theory of grand unification must include quantum gravity. In other words it must be background (geometry) independent. In string theory gravity is taken into account as a static classical background. Space-time geometry must to be quantized. It is not an easy task and string theory uses perturbation method to take gravity into account (so called gravitons). But it is not the same thing as true quantum geometry. In true quantum geometry there should be minimum length and volume in addition to maximum speed (of light). It is mind boggling complicated but there is already some progress made in this direction. See non-commutative geometry developed by French mathematician Alain Connes. It is solid approach to true unification and I prefer it over anything that string theory offers. You see, ignorant public considers string theory as a final truth and does not even has slightest idea about Alain Connes. Why? Because mainstream media crows string theory “achievements” constantly. It is funny because string theory technically is dead. Now, I am not climatologist, but GW is similar in this aspect to String Theory. It is more invention of mainstream media and politicians than anything related to science. Of course you can deny science but not for too long.

"I'll clarify. The posts in these threads are personal, angry, and disrespectful. They used to be an occasional break from talking about cars, but now it's at least a weekly event to be called any number of insults by a number of posters, including the Editor in Chief of Edmunds.com.
  
That's fine in a personal blog, and this is one. But it's also an Edmunds.com blog, and a number of us were attracted here by that fact. Now the industry insight isn't enough for me to feel entertained by coming here, its target audience has moved away from what I'm looking for. Nothing wrong with that, I'm sure I'll run into a lot of you guys in other places."
 
Carlisimo, you may not see this since you've left but I'll respond for others who have remained:
 
To say you want to hear automotive industry insight and not political discourse is like saying you want to listen to the radio and you never want to hear a song you don't like. Granted, with satellite radio we're getting close to that, but even Classic Rewind on Sirius still plays songs I don't care for. The automotive industry is HUGELY political. After profit-motive it's easily the largest factor in determining what an automaker does -- often the two are tightly intertwined (and I would argue moreso now than ever before). As such, political discussion/debate must be a part of any industry discussion if it's to have any merit in today's world.
 
As for "name calling," you basically said it correctly -- this is a personal blog. I'm fortunate to have Edmunds allow me to blog, but I'm not going to blog in a sterilized, sanitized manner even with Edmunds' support. First, because it wouldn't really serve the purpose of a "blog" in my opinion (if you want sanitized automotive news there are thousands of sources out there already). Second, because I feel the real value of THIS blog is to let people discuss automotive topics directly with the editor in chief, something you can't do with the guys running Motor Trend, C&D, Automobile, Consumer Reports, Kelley Blue Book, etc., etc.
 
Finally, I need to make this clear (and maybe I'll devote Monday's blog to this very topic): I have some very strong core beliefs. Some of you have probably already noticed this. And one of my strongest is that Americans don't do nearly enough critical thinking. They tend to swallow the latest headline or trend or fad -- hook, line and sinker, without ever questioning the validity of said headline, trend or fad. History is full of this behavior (another subject where too many Americans are woefully underinformed).
 
Because I'm a Libertarian at heart I don't ever want to limit a person's ability to behave in such a manner, but because I'm also a huge fan of free thinking and critical analysis I will always call out such behavior (the word "sheep" is often involved) whenever I see it. I do this for the simple reason that at its best this behavior shows a lack of effort and/or intelligent prudence, and at its worst it can be downright dangerous. As I mentioned several posts above, if the population of a country either can't think for itself or won't speak out against the latest popular movement for fear of being scorned it can have disastrous results.
 
I sincerely believe that for every person who truly buys the man-made global warming theory there are five who don't, but four of them won't admit it because of the culturally-popular weight MMGW now carries. Unfortunately, this includes scientists, too! And, honestly guys, you're worse than the people who believe in MMGW, because at least those people are speaking from the heart. Anyone who won't openly state their suspicions regarding MMGW is basically cowering in the corner and letting this thing gain steam. That's how some very bad things have been allowed to transpire in the past...
 
So, if anyone out there doesn't want to hear about politics, or you don't want to hear honest, straightforward reaction to your comments, or if you don't want to hear the word "sheep" (or "lazy" or "ignorant") then I would suggest you save yourself the pain and frustration of reading this blog.

Savetheland, I did indeed have the misconception that string theory is accepted the same way relativity theory is! And I do admit that the reason is because popular culture gives that impression. I have never heard of Alain Connes! So I'm very grateful for your insight. One question: why is there the need/drive in the physics community to unite all the four fundamental forces? Is there anything wrong with having four fundamental forces? Could you please shed some light on that? (Perhaps you could e-mail me via carspace, as this is probably going off-topic for this blog.....but if Karl doesn't mind, I certainly wouldn't mind you answering those questions here.)
 
I'd appreciate it if you could give the same (or similar) insight into why MMGW might be untrue.
 
"To say you want to hear automotive industry insight and not political discourse is like saying you want to listen to the radio and you never want to hear a song you don't like..........The automotive industry is HUGELY political."
 
Karl, I fully agree!
 
Karl, I don't know about other people who accept MMGW, but I think it's proabably true not because of some fad or refusal/unwillingness to think and question things. Although I have not read extensively on the topic, I have read a bit about it, considered both sides of the argument, thought about it for a while, and I think MMGW is probably true and consider it to be true.
(Maybe it's because I live in Texas, but I don't even hear people discuss global warming! Most people I know driving hybrids are doing so because of the fuel economy........here there are no special lanes for hybrid drivers. Honestly, the only time I hear of global warming is in the news. So I'm yet to experience MMGW as a fad.)
 
While I consider it to be true, I'm open to the possibility that MMGW could be proved false/incorrect in the future. For centuries, Newtonian mechanics was considered to be true until relativity proved it to be false.....so it's entirely possible that MMGW would be proved untrue in years to come. But for now, it seems to me that the pro-MMGW camp have a more compelling argument and there is little reason to doubt MMGW.....[at least, until savetheland posts a reply...:). ]
 
Besides, assuming for a moment that MMGW is false, taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions have other benefits:
1. In fighting MMGW, we develop renewable and environmentally-friendly sources of energy.
2. We reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil in the long term.
3. We would probably develop efficient mass-transit systems and better town planning to ease potential congestion in the future.
 
Karl, I have an idea. Perhaps another blog topic would be for you to state the reasons why you doubt MMGW.

It sounds like you and I are closer on this topic than it might seem. Your position is that you could see MMGW being proved wrong in the future, but for now you're going believe it. I could see MMGW being proved right in the future, but for now I don't believe it. We both are allowing for the possibility of change in our position based on changes in facts, but we're starting with different takes on the current level of "proof" in either direction.
 
The only point I would add is that MMGW theory is relatively new (no matter how you measure the words "relatively" and "new" -- so please, nobody come out of the woodwork with "But Karl, it was first theorized back in 1968" -- that's still relatively new in terms of scientific theory). And scientific theory is a lot like how "guilt" and "innocence" are supposed to work in this country -- i.e. theory is only theory until it is proven fact. As such, when a new theory is introduced you're better off not believing it until it is proven versus deciding to believe it for now and just see if it is ever dis-proven. New theories are under the obligation to be proven accurate before being taken seriously, not the other way around (i.e. just take them seriously for now, and if they are ever proven to be wrong...oh well).
 
As for my reasons for not believing MMGW (beyond the basic philosophy of scientific theory I just covered), I'll try to cover them very quickly here. You're right, they really need a full blog post (at least) of their own to be properly illustrated. Here they are in order of reasons for not believing in MMGW:
 
1. History of Temperature Change -- we don't yet fully (or really even partially) understand what causes temperature change on the planet, but we do know it's been going on since the earth first cooled several billion years ago (obviously that pattern is not man-made).
2. Lack of Accurate Computer Modeling -- we have lots of data being fed to computers, and lots of predictions coming from those computers...and lots of instances of the models/predictions being proven slightly to completely off base. The idea that we can predict temperature changes on a global scale for the next 50 to 150 years is laughable to me.
3. Lack of Accurate Data -- many scientists are already claiming the planet's temperature has gone up over the last 100-plus years, yet ask many scientists how accurate our 100 years of temperature data is and they typically hem and haw about how there may be room for some variance but it's probably accurate enough. I'm sure we can tell general trends in temperature over the past 100 years (or longer based on ice analysis, etc.) but to suggest it's accurate enough to predict global changes of 1-3 degrees over the next 100 years? Once again, laughable.
4. History of Incorrect Scientific Prediction -- The "By the year 2000" predictions of 30 years ago were pretty funny. Widespread death by overpopulation, starvation, air pollution, acid rain. You name it. Oh, we should have also run out oil many years ago. To say scientific prediction doesn't have a perfect history is a bit of an understatement. I personally think if the prediction has an element of "We're all gonna die unless we do something now!" the likelihood of inaccuracy is at least cubed.
5. Earth Big, Humans Puny -- I know it goes against what so many of us want to believe, but there are still many forces of nature that are far more powerful than we are. To say we could change the temperature of the planet with car exhaust is yet another laughable concept. And no, splitting the atom and inventing the nuclear bomb doesn't change my stance on this one. Listen to the comparisons of destruction between a nuclear bomb and an asteroid hitting the earth. We and our bombs are still puny on a global/galactic scale, and that's the scale you have to consider when talking global warming.
 
I've got some more, but I don't know how much space I've got left in one comment post, so I'll stop here.

Karl has a kind of critical thinking that distinguishes scientists and engineers from ordinary human beings. Most Americans as well as Europeans are ordinary human beings and blindly believe in anything presented by mainstream media as a truth. The difference is that Europeans have more mob mentality and do whatever government orders to do, while Americans are more determined to preserve personal freedoms including freedom of choice and hate being overly taxed by bureaucrats. I will be very surprised if American people agree to make personal sacrifices for something as theoretical and doubtful as MMGW. Unlike Europeans American never accepted Fascism, Nazism or Communism and most likely will not accept MMGW as well as an official ideology.
 
Blackadder, unification is the long process going on thousands of years. It started with ancient Greece philosophers and lasted until unification of electromagnetic and week forces into one electroweak interaction. In some degree strong interaction is also unified although in artificial way. And still there is no true unified theory of electro-weak and strong interactions, it is more like model than theory and it is called Standard model - this model was accepted as a standard since late 70s because it describes experiment with an extremely high precision. Gravity is the only force that was ignored in this process because quantizing gravity is extremely difficult – it has to be done as a quantanization of space-time as a whole. Why we think there should be a grand unification – because we believe that God created Universe in the simplest possible way and space-time and matter has to be reflections one fundamental substance. Fundamental super-symmetric string was a candidate in 80s – all existing particles were derived as different modes (or overtones) of one string. But it did not include gravity/space-time and predicted too many never observed exotic particles. If you are interested in this topic I would recommend to read Lee Smolin’s new book “The Trouble With Physics. The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, And What Comes Next". Lee is a renowned physicist - one of the founders of loop quantum gravity.

Well, Karl and savetheland, it looks like I have to do some more reading on MMGW. Karl, I think your points are interesting and thought provoking, except for Point 5. While we humans are indeed puny, because of our large numbers (6 billion +) our actions can and have already affected the planet. There is no disputing that fact. It is definitely possible/concievable that some human actions can/have altered the Earth. I can give some examples:
 
1. Deforestation. Because of our large number and our need to clear the forest for agriculture and timber, there is now less forest cover than there probably would be if there were fewer humans. How bad or good this deforestation is can be debated, but there's no doubt we've altered the landscape.
2. For the same reasons as above (and also because of illegal poaching), there are far fewer wild animals than ther probably would be if humans were fewer. Once again, whether this is good or bad is debatable, but I think it's probably not a good thing.
3. When one oil tanker sinks or leaks, it wreaks havoc over large areas of the ocean. Imagine what would happen if humans were so irresponsible to develop necessary technology/regulation to minimise such accidents!
 
These are just a few examples but the point is that it's very concievable that some human action could cause global warming. So MMGW is not a laughable concept. Yeah, humans are puny, but that puny.

Mirth, I read this article and have suspicion that with MMGW hysteria European powers want to restrict growth of population and increase death rate in poor countries. There is double advantage – less poor immigrants coming to Europe and more money spent at home to “fight” MMGW.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=3&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
 
another good story about what I was talking about.
 
seems that theres even a term for it: "availability cascade"
 
as defined in the article:
 
The availability cascade is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear.

"The availability cascade is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear."
 
BINGO!
 
It's a slightly different take on "If it bleeds it leads" but the same overall concept. Basically, if a good chunk of people have decided MMGW is real then they will listen to every news story on it...which guarantees a certain level of interest in every story on it...which guarantees a certain amount of coverage for it by news directors...which guarantees more people will keep hearing about it, and likely decide it must be worth worrying about. And the circle of hysteria continues.
 
Stop the media rollercoster, I want to get off...

I watch MMGW coverage by media as a comedy and/or soap opera. Talking heads (politicians, messiah Al, journalists) look so insincere and false that in no way I can assume that they really believe in MMGW. Ordinary people may seem dumb, but instantly become smarter when they have to part with their $$.

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=4&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
 
"A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001"
 
It is what I call science. You make prediction and if it fails – the theory is wrong. This statement is another proof that GW "theory" is feelgood liberal idea to push enviromental cause - to stop global economic growth.
 
But "the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”
 
And it is true face of media - they are incompetent and ignorant - cannot even make simple logical conclusion. But are good at speading rumors.