I don't see this denting the truly full-size market (though GM's forthcoming hybrid and 4.5L diesel powertrains just might). This thing can't tow, that's the only downside I see in its niche.
 
We're quickly going to be moving to a market where mileage and TCO rules all, forget 0-60 (provided it's under 14 seconds or so, people will adapt).

MazdaUSA.com on 2008 Tribute HEV:
 
"The 2008 Tribute HEV is being made in a production run of about 350 vehicles and sold in select areas of California"
 
How pathetic is this?!

I might choose the Ford Escape HEV over this twin if I could get Microsoft's Sync.

BTW, if you don't claim to be riding on the latest Green Bandwagon you are free to drive whatever you want, no excuses necessary.
  
So let me see if I understand: You don't believe in global warming and you think environmentalism is hooey. Yet, you have set standards that you think every environmentalist should measure up to, and if they don't, then they're hypocrites.
  
Let me see if I get this part right too: In your opinion, a person who claims to care about the earth, who does some things, but not everything possible to reduce pollution and conserve resources, is worse than someone without principle who pollutes as much as he or she wants.
  
Maybe you should stop with the faux outrage and write a column entitled "Screw the Earth"?

The reasons not to have this SUV: no traction control, poor crash test results, poor handling (all this is based on Ford's twin) .

I like how you phrased it. "You don't believe in global warming". That's excellent use of terminology, as it demonstrates very clearly that global warming is in fact not scientifically based and is instead a religion.
 
And when I say global warming, I'm refering to the theory that "Increase amounts of CO2 emissions caused by man have resulted in an increase in the global temperatures."
 
Additionally, Karl made the statement "Essentially, if you claim to be interested in "doing your part to save the planet" you could do a lot worse than driving a 30-plus mpg SUV with enough power, space and luxury for 90-plus percent of current SUV/crossover drivers.
 
Go ahead, start listing reasons why this one won't satisfy your needs. Every excuse makes that neon "Enviro-Hypocrite" sign above you head glow a little brighter (which is yet another waste of energy)."
 
And he's right. SUV's are for the most part anti-green. Your average SUV is a larger vehicle that uses up more fuel. Because an SUV is based on a truck, you end up with truck-like economy. However, an SUV is much more likely to be used as personal transportation than a pickup. Your average commuter is only taking themselves or possibly one other with them to work, so the utility of a large fuel hungry vehicle mostly goes to waste.
 
If you want to claim to be green concious and drive an SUV, then the HEV vehicles listed above are good options.

"That's excellent use of terminology, as it demonstrates very clearly that global warming is in fact not scientifically based and is instead a religion. "
 
Very well put. I am in total agreement.
 
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/global_warming_creeping_fascism_of_global_warming_hysteria.htm

Tribute Hybrid is sold in CA and CA only.
A vehicle that is only sold in one state in the US is not going to satisfy the needs of buyers in 49 states.

I'm a creeping religious fascist, interesting.
 
Puny humans! I will crush you beneath a landslide of peace lilies!

and Capital eating regulations all in the vain attempt to save the world. Afterall we have to show that we care for world.
 
It takes a village, right? Your peace lilies are worthless. Classic symbolism over substance. It typifies the vapidness of our politics and our national debate.
 
I too am for peace. The kind of peace that doesn't get us killed or poverty stricken.

I wasn't being serious about the peace lilies.
 
Anyway, I'm surprised Mazda's building so few. The latest styling change to the Escape makes the Tribute look good, so there's gotta be more of a market than 350.
I'd like to see the Tribute continue on (even if they change the name). The CX-7 is uncomfortably large to myself and a couple of my friends who've owned Tributes. And there are a bunch of people who know Mazda through it and the B2200... for a small brand it's gotta be even more important to try to keep customers like those.

I know. My secretary is the kind of person that believes that it is possible that we can live in a world of no war and if we spent all our money and resources on wind power and organic gardening the world would turn into a Coca-Cola Commercial of the late 1960's
 
The world is complex, the climate is complex, the economy is complex. Anyone that tells you they have the answer to "fix" these things are fools.
 
In the meantime looking at lilies can bring down the blood pressure and help me tune out the chanting of the lunitics that carry them.

I never said creeping.
 
I do think the Nazi/fascist/Hitler name calling is overboard on this (both sides are guilty) and a number of other subjects.

mnorm1
 
That is the best article title I have ever read.
 
"BTW, if you don't claim to be riding on the latest Green Bandwagon you are free to drive whatever you want, no excuses necessary."
 
Already done. My Mazda3 i gets slightly better mileage than the Tribute, is sportier, faster, and (arguably) much better looking. If you are only commuting to and from work, it's a lot more effective to let Newton work on your side by driving the small, low, aerodynamic car than the lumbering sport ute. Cheaper too.

No, no good answers here. I just feel that I have a good understanding of the science and it leads me to think that we're on the way to making life difficult and expensive in the near future. Definitely not a pacifist though, both my parents come from countries where an underarmed population was subjugated and oppressed for decades by right wing dictatorships.
 
I also really want to own a car with a rotary engine at some point... a bit conflicted about that.

Let me ask this question, Mr. 420to850tofit:
 
If I see a Christian acting in a manner that is counter to the religion they espouse belief in, do I have to be a Christian to call them on their hypocrasy?

"Already done. My Mazda3 gets slightly better mileage than the Tribute, is sportier, faster, and (arguably) much better looking. If you are only commuting to and from work, it's a lot more effective to let Newton work on your side by driving the small, low, aerodynamic car than the lumbering sport ute. Cheaper too."
 
Here is a point both the greenies and the non-greenies have to agree on. I prefer to lean on simple physics efficiency.

Brett8210, your secretary should stop drinking Coke. The CO2 in it causes global warming. Also, make sure you breathe less and don't fart today, because, you know, global warming. You should also make sure your house is made out of earth-friendly materials. Translation: Mud. And it better be mud that doesn't disturb insects or trees. Wood, plastic, insulation, bricks, and other non-earth friendly materials are out. Plus, if you can't find any mud for your house that doesn't meet "earth-friendly" specs, too bad. No house for you. And if you're cold, tough. Fires are unacceptable and so is "dirty electricity."
 
Just kidding.
 
As everyone can see, this "green extremism," as I call it, is little more than anti-civilization speak and leads us down a dangerous economic and social path, because any progress will never be good enough. This is also detrimental to true progress in enviornmental technology and enviornmentalism itself.
 
Why? Well, money that could be spent for transformational solutions will be spent for far diminished returns on things like fuel economy (when it might be better spent on alternative fuels or propulsion), and present problems like water shortages, preparedness for hurricanes, water pollution (like the Mississippi is experiencing right now in the delta region), and other issues that should get our attention and science dollars NOW, are put off while we worry about things like global warming, which may or may not be man-made.
 
I also fail to see why we are putting all of our attention on the automotive industry as "the culprit of all our problems." It's well-known that they are only a small piece of the problem in the first place, and the marketplace is demanding more small cars and fuel efficiency, which means that the market is doing its job. If people demand efficiency they will get fuel efficient cars, that's what free markets do. The auto industry is also one of the most competitive industries on the planet, so it's not like GM or Toyota is sitting on a market, toying with it, saying we all have to buy SUV's, or bwah ha ha, we get nothing!
 
Just some things to think about the next time you pop open a coke!

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/
 
The founder of the Weather Channel seems skeptical. I think he understands the science.

"So let me see if I understand: You don't believe in global warming and you think environmentalism is hooey. Yet, you have set standards that you think every environmentalist should measure up to, and if they don't, then they're hypocrites."
 
YES
   
"Let me see if I get this part right too: In your opinion, a person who claims to care about the earth, who does some things, but not everything possible to reduce pollution and conserve resources, is worse than someone without principle who pollutes as much as he or she wants."
 
YES
   
"Maybe you should stop with the faux outrage and write a column entitled "Screw the Earth"?"
 
I'll have to run this idea by the executives at Edmunds. No promises, but I'll see what I can do.

This is a fun debate that's going nowhere. :)

You've just described every political -- and environmental -- debate of the past 30 years.

Yep.

here's the future: small cars!
 
http://www.noob.us/entertainment/top-gear-reviews-a-very-tiny-car/

Top Gear is pure genius.

I love that the meeting went on so long regarding the "ethocentrism" that they accomplished nothing.
 
Typical. And I wouldn't have it any other way. Heaven forbid they put their ramblings into action.

heffling:
If I see a Christian acting in a manner that is counter to the religion they espouse belief in, do I have to be a Christian to call them on their hypocrasy?
  
Well, that depends. You could interpret the Bible as condoning such things as slavery and selling one's daughter, and forbidding such things as divorce, interracial marriage, or taking any kind of oath.
 
For the sake of the argument, we'll have to assume you're anti-Christian in order to keep the analogy consistent, because Karl is anti-environmentalist.
  
So you could pretend you have a grasp of Christian beliefs, and claim to care whether or not others are being hypocritical--as if it matters to you--but what's the purpose of doing so?
  
It seems to me that most people who rant about the hypocrisy of others are only pretending to hate the hypocrisy, when in fact they really have great contempt for the people they disagree and are trying to rationalize it in some way.

editor_karl
  
Perhaps I should read your columns ahead of time and extract what you really mean out of them, then?
  
If I knew all of your beliefs, I could push them to illogical conclusions and then tell you how hypocritical you are for not adhering to everything I think you should, but that would be silly, wouldn't it?

I have no beliefs, only opinions. You don't have to spend much time researching to see that most of the evil in the world is caused by people who are so attached to their beliefs that they can't not accept that someone might believe something else.
 
Therefore I only have opinions and they are subject to change as new data is made available.

240to850tofit,
 
I am not anti-christian. Simply because I don't believe in christianity does not automatically make me an anti-christian.
 
I am not anti-environmentalism. However, I have seen from my experience that environmentalism is often undertaken with out a proper understanding of the outcome of the actions. The fires in California are due to the fact that significant amounts of vegitation has been allowed to grow without natural fires to suppress this growth. In this case, man has, in the name of environmentalism, destablized the natural order. This has happened almost every time man has tried to control nature, as there is an inherint assumption that we know better.
 
I am anti-global warming, as this is an unproven scientific theory supported by junk science, political interests, and is nothing more than bad science.
 
Any conclusions drawn from beliefs are illogical. That's what makes them beliefs, after all.

Beliefs can be malleable, and opinions can be held too stubbornly. It is a matter of mindset, not word choice.
  
It is a sad fact of humanity that we are so good at rationalizing our actions against overwhelming factual evidence, because accepting reality is often more painful.
  
Every time I see someone spitting angrily about "environmentalist wackos," I think that it must be easier for that person to believe that everyone who cares about the Earth and our future descendants is an insane crackpot, rather than coming to grips with the fact that the actions of 6,600,000,000 people actually can and do make a difference, whether they are positive or negative.

240to850tofit
 
You need to read the new study from the University of Arizona. It is as scientific as can get and it establishes that the data used in most of the global warming temperature studies is overstated. It differentiates between CO2 from natural occuring sources and that from burning fossil fuels. I won't pretend to know all the tenants of the study.
 
But their conclusion is that Man Made Global Warming is a Hoax, perpetuated by bad data.
 
Further the founder of the Weather Channel has come out and called the tenants of MMGW the biggest falsehood perpetuated in the name of science.
 
Now I only hope you will have the Courage to Look at the FACTS and the SCIENCE rather than the blind faith of your "CONSENSUS"

I'm in construction, and obviously we're not going to stop building. But the commercial construction industry has been shifting to a mindset of being more careful with our methods and being a lot more choosy about the materials we use. Maybe we have to deny that we're environmentalists for that to count as a good thing (since we're still building things, and driving trucks to do so), but the savings in waste, VOCs, energy costs, etc. are undeniable. Anything you do to help... helps. So I don't get the "hypocrite" argument.
 
Yes, all this costs a bit more, but over the life cycle of a building there are a lot of savings to be had. Well, it turns out that companies that think long term have a competitive advantage in the eyes of many clients. When a new advantage pops up in an industry, everyone's starting from zero so it's a tremendous opportunity to leap ahead of the competition. Or, we could choose to compete as a low-cost contractor, bidding to low-rent clients and looking old fashioned and obsolete. Reminds me of the car industry.

I agree with you Carlisimo to the extent the Market is determining the methods and the materials. If an individual wants to build a building that uses materials that conserve natural resources in order to market that aspect of their company. Great.
 
More power to them. But that is not at the heart of the "movement." In fact most "envirnonmentalists" are floored and appauled that the market is actually taking on most of the heavy lifting in the changing methods used.
 
They want the government to place limits on our lifestyles. Democrats right now are attempting to introduce a bill that would rid anyone with a house over 3000 sq. feet of its mortgage interest deduction. This is social engineering. It is UNAMERICAN, unpatriotic and should be defeated.

heffling

1. You misunderstand my point. I am not calling you anti-Christian, I was saying that in order for the analogy to be relevant to an anti-environmentalist attacking an environmentalist, I would compare an anti-Christian attacking a Christian. In both cases, there are many levels of belief commitment, variations in belief, and serious misunderstandings by both parties. To judge the orthodoxy of someone whose beliefs you not only don't fully understand, but actively campaign against, is absurd.
  
2. I agree that overzealous fire suppression is a big mistake, and you will find that the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the League of Conservation Voters (among many others) all agree, too. Look at where most of the nasty fires in California were--near population centers. Fires in Southern California are fought hard and early because of fears that they will destroy property and endanger human life, not because of environmentalists. But go on and keep perpetuating the myth that environmentalism caused it all; no one seems to be stopping you or anyone else.
  
3. Gravity and evolution are also unproven scientific theories.
  
4. If you don't think that anti-global warming evidence is supported by junk science, corporations, and political interests, then I've got some beachfront property in Florida to sell to you.
  
5. Beliefs are not inherently illogical, though many inherently illogical people hold strongly to their beliefs.

brett8210
  
You mean the study referenced here, that was found to be a hoax? Being reported here by one of the most right-wing news sites?
  
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58573
  
Also, I don't know where you get the idea that I have blind faith in any consensus, but I find it funny that you were led by blind faith not to question this study because it aligned perfectly with your beliefs.

Well if that is true I stand corrected. But the Weather Channel Founder is not a hoax

brett8210
  
What merit did the fake U of A paper have, other than that it spoke to your preconceived notions?
  
What merit do John Coleman's beliefs have, other than that they speak to your preconceived notions?
  
I could point you to any number of scientists who say the opposite of what he does. Doing so wouldn't necessarily make me right, either.

What merit? According to the delusion of the Gore and the Gang there are No credible arguments to the contrary to their apocalyptical views.
 
They have merit because they demonstrate a viable debate despite the best efforts of the environmentalists to tell us differently.
 
John Coleman's views have merit because he is a scientist and has studied the Climate his entire adult life. Sure you can point to "Scientists" that will point out the other side.
 
But what is key is that your scientists are denying that a debate is even taking place. They insist that the world is flat. And they have computer models to prove it.

They have merit merely because they express a contrary position? Seriously?
  
Next up on the news: A report on why the sky is blue, followed by a dissenting opinion on why the sky simply cannot be blue.
  
And my point stands; John Coleman is a weather forecaster who's getting attention because he's saying what people want to hear. The only reason you believe him over any scientists (in quote marks or not) is because you already agree with what he says.

"For the sake of the argument, we'll have to assume you're anti-Christian in order to keep the analogy consistent, because Karl is anti-environmentalist."
 
Actually, I'm anti "Humans Thinking they are More Important and/or More Powerful than they Really Are" -- a philosophy that drives an increasing percentage of humans nuts (especially the anti-religious ones who want to believe they are the ultimate power in the universe and everything that happens happens because of -- and not in-spite of -- their actions).
 
"If I knew all of your beliefs, I could push them to illogical conclusions and then tell you how hypocritical you are for not adhering to everything I think you should, but that would be silly, wouldn't it?"
 
No, it would be great! Please, watch and listen to me and note all my many incidents of hypocricy. I've got over two years of posts in full public view, so it should be easy. BTW, can you say the same? Because if you're turning the "hypocricy spotlight" on me, expect it to eventually hit a mirror.
 
"It is a sad fact of humanity that we are so good at rationalizing our actions against overwhelming factual evidence, because accepting reality is often more painful."
 
Speaking of mirrors, we agree 100 percent on this one...
 
"What merit do John Coleman's beliefs have, other than that they speak to your preconceived notions?"
 
Yup, sometimes people do that. They come up with the "answer" or "conclusion" first, then go find whatever "evidence" they need to support it.
 
Idiotic behavior, really.

"The only reason you believe him over any scientists (in quote marks or not) is because you already agree with what he says."
 
Not that is not true. There are plenty of scientists that posit a different position from the "consensus" that you claim. You asked what Merit did they have. For the purpose of this debate they demonstrate that there is a debate. If you are prepared to have a full scientific discussion on the basis (or lack thereof) of MMGW then bring it on.
 
You computer models? What Merit do they bring? Your carbon numbers? What merit do they bring? How do you correlate temperature readings that don't match up with rises in CO2 historically? What merit does any of this have outside of a theory that is threatening the very livelihood that many of us hold dear.

Actually, I'm anti "Humans Thinking they are More Important and/or More Powerful than they Really Are" -- a philosophy that drives an increasing percentage of humans nuts (especially the anti-religious ones who want to believe they are the ultimate power in the universe and everything that happens happens because of -- and not in-spite of -- their actions).
  
You profoundly misunderstand most atheists, though you are not the only one.
  
And climate change is not about the awesome power of man, it's about the possibility that the actions of billions of people, taken together, may have unintended consequences. Just because it's hard to conceive of the gigantic scale on which this is all occurring does not make it an impossibility.
   
Please, watch and listen to me and note all my many incidents of hypocricy. I've got over two years of posts in full public view, so it should be easy. BTW, can you say the same? Because if you're turning the "hypocricy spotlight" on me, expect it to eventually hit a mirror.
  
No, it would be silly. And if, per your suggestion, I decided to go around judging other people for sport, then we would already have hit the mirror.
   
"It is a sad fact of humanity that we are so good at rationalizing our actions against overwhelming factual evidence, because accepting reality is often more painful."
   
Speaking of mirrors, we agree 100 percent on this one...
  
We just don't agree on what the evidence is :)
   
"What merit do John Coleman's beliefs have, other than that they speak to your preconceived notions?"
   
Yup, sometimes people do that. They come up with the "answer" or "conclusion" first, then go find whatever "evidence" they need to support it.
  
Idiotic behavior, really.
  
I couldn't agree more.

"No, it would be silly. And if, per your suggestion, I decided to go around judging other people for sport, then we would already have hit the mirror."
 
Sounds like someone who doesn't want to look in one.

brett8210
  
"The only reason you believe him over any scientists (in quote marks or not) is because you already agree with what he says."
   
Not that is not true.
  
Then why did you believe the fake U of A paper, calling it "as scientific as it can get"?
  
There are plenty of scientists that posit a different position from the "consensus" that you claim.
  
I am not sure why you are putting "consensus" in quote marks, as if I have been talking about one.
Of course, there is one, while the number of dissenters is small by comparison. But I should be quick to point out that sheer numbers do not make one group right or one group wrong.
  
You asked what Merit did they have. For the purpose of this debate they demonstrate that there is a debate.
  
With the fraudulent paper, you have demonstrated ably that on your side of the debate there are both lies and a willingness to believe anything that supports its preconceived ideas. With John Coleman, you have demonstrated that one person with iffy credentials can get a ton of mindshare simply because he says something that people want to hear. It is no secret that there is a gigantic disparity between media coverage and actual scientific studies done about climate change--media coverage overwhelmingly suggests there is a debate in the scientific community, and actively seeks out opposing viewpoints, often failing to notice when such viewpoints are funded (directly or indirectly) by companies like Exxon. In contrast, the number of scientific studies that suggest climate change is not occurring, or is not man-made, is very few.
  
Once upon a time, a lot of people were convinced that cigarette smoke is not harmful, and that secondhand smoke is not harmful. Try to guess where almost all the "evidence" for those findings came.
  
If you are prepared to have a full scientific discussion on the basis (or lack thereof) of MMGW then bring it on.
  
I am neither prepared nor inclined to do so; neither of us will succeed at convincing.
   
You computer models? What Merit do they bring?
  
You are asking me to defend something I didn't bring up. But, okay. Computer models are used in all areas of science because, when done properly, they work. Cars today are largely designed and tested on computer because attributes such as driving dynamics and safety can be accurately modeled. The behavior of hurricanes can be predicted far better now than, say, twenty years ago, because of more accurate and powerful computer models. And models have been created using partial climate data from the past to check their accuracy, and those models which have proven accurate are what is used to predict further increases in global temperature. People who know their stuff, who don't have an agenda, who sincerely don't want it to be true, have nevertheless found, time and time again, that it is likely that there is man-made global warming.
  
Your carbon numbers? What merit do they bring?
  
I am not sure what you mean by carbon numbers, unless you mean carbon offsets? I think that carbon offsets are largely a ridiculous scheme that delays real progress by making people think they can buy away their guilt.
  
How do you correlate temperature readings that don't match up with rises in CO2 historically?
  
Um, how do you rationalize temperature readings that do correlate with rises in CO2?
  
What merit does any of this have outside of a theory that is threatening the very livelihood that many of us hold dear.
  
I think that what the theory predicts is much worse than the theory itself. Everyone wishes it to be not true, but some of us can handle the possibility that it is.

editor_karl
  
The mirror analogy is cute, but you're basically daring me to do something I already declared to be ridiculous, just so you can eventually declare me a hypocrite, when you know by my previous posts that I think that your emphasis on hypocrisy is really dodging the issue.
  
Yes, we're all hypocrites. Me, you, every breathing human on earth. So? Should that mean that nobody is allowed to stand for anything?

"Yes, we're all hypocrites. Me, you, every breathing human on earth."
 
See, I patently disagree with this statement. I'm not a hyprocrite, thus the challenge to go ahead and prove that I am (you know, the challenge you won't accept).
 
So to be clear, that's my entire point. Saying you did this small thing over here, undoubtedly to make yourself "feel good" about your efforts to save the planet, means NOTHING if your overall lifestyle doesn't actually support that goal and, in truth, wastes/pollutes more than the average human on the planet (I've just described the majority of Hollywoodies and Liberals, BTW).
 
I have no patience for the person who screams we should "do whatever it takes to avoid this terrible tragedy" as they yell it from the driver's seat of their 300-plus horsepower sedan or SUV, or from the front yard of their 10,000 square foot house.
 
Either admit you aren't really willing to make a functional sacrifice for your beliefs, or admit you really don't have any beliefs in this "potential tragedy" and are just doing symbolic crap to be part of the hip, cool "let's-save-the-planet" fad currently sweeping the country.
 
Or, you could be truly unique and admit you don't believe in this latest chicken little story AND you're brave enough to admit openly you don't believe in it, even in the face of social and political pressure to do otherwise.

"If you are prepared to have a full scientific discussion on the basis (or lack thereof) of MMGW then bring it on.
   
I am neither prepared nor inclined to do so; neither of us will succeed at convincing."
 
Please, let's have that debate. I would love it! I think I would benefit from a healthy and informed discussion about global warming and what the reality is! I recently heard some compelling arguments on why man-made global warming may not be necessary true. I'd like to hear a good argument on the other side.

editor_karl
  
I would like to know what you consider a "functional sacrifice" for my beliefs.
  
I would also like to know what your opinion is of people who do make such sacrifices.
 
There are lots of committed people who do; not everyone is Paris Hilton, bleating about how she wants a hybrid Hummer so she can save the Earth.

blackadder5639
  
I would like to hear those arguments. All I've heard from the deniers is naysaying with very little, or nothing, to back it up.

LOL
 
Karl; you really opened a long winded can of worms on this one.
 
Being the trouble maker that I am, I have to fight to restrain from making this worse. So I will stay middle of the road by stating the truth.
 
Global warming is neither a fact or a myth. It is a theroy that need to be investigated by someone that doesn't have a prior agenda.
 
I'm not sure where you will find such a person but I'm waiting to here from him (or her).
 
The present debate borders on the absurd.

Easy enough to provide examples of sacrifice:
 
Ed Begley Jr. -- Real sacrifices (or at least very good at looking that way). The majority of the systems in his house are set up to use minimal energy and/or be as energy efficient as possible.
 
Every other famous person who claims to be an environmentalist -- Fake sacrifices to appear green for the camera. Dig past their PUBLIC car (rarely driven anyway because they use limos) or PUBLIC food choices and you find houses with three times the number of bedrooms versus family members (all requiring heating and air conditioning), nothing but first-class air travel (when they aren't on private jets) and a high volume of expensive products that are replaced often (all of this requiring lots of production energy and transportation fuel to ship).
 
And NO, their "influence" on telling everyone else to be environmentally responsible DOESN'T give them a free pass to be energy/pollution hogs.
 
And just to make this point once again - IF YOU DON'T CLAIM TO BE AN ENVIRONMENTALIST ALL OF THESE BEHAVIORS ARE FINE. It's only the hypocrites I have an issue with.
 
Firstwagon: I agree it's absurd to take up a cause and start passing laws or restricting freedoms based on a theory that's not be remotely proven. Unfortunately it serves multiple political/social agendas, so it's happening.

editor_karl
  
And how do you feel about Ed Begley, Jr.? What do you think about people who make real sacrifices?
  
And why do you keep talking so much about how awful Hollywoodies are, anyway? I'm asking you to address nuance, and all I see is your focus on the extreme levels of excess from a very small number of people.
  
And do you deny that there are many political and corporate motivations to deny that global warming is man-made?

"And why do you keep talking so much about how awful Hollywoodies are, anyway?"
 
Because by-and-large they are the worst of offenders of jumping on whatever flavor-of-the-month bandwagon is driving through town, without having any real care or concern over the related issues.
 
"I'm asking you to address nuance, and all I see is your focus on the extreme levels of excess from a very small number of people."
 
Address nuance? Actually I think you're wasting my time...but only for as long as I let you.

Hi 240to850toFit,
 
Those arguments are on the STRATEGIES FOR SMART CARY BUYERS blog, and it's called UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA: NEW CAR BUYING. The basic argment the commentators raise is that the correlation between CO2 in higher temperatures does not imply that CO2 causes higher temperatures. They also say that man-made CO2 is only a fraction of total CO2.
 
These postulates make sense, except that I find it hard to see why the IPCC and the majority of scientists who support MMGW wouldn't have noticed these and tested their theories for them! I haven't read widely enough to know what the truth is.........but I'd like to hear from a well-read person who supports MMGW.
 
BTW, 240to850toFit, where do you get your interesting name from? DId you own a 240ZX, then a Volvo 850, and now a Honda Fit?

The fallacy of your precious computer models is the arrogance to belief you can model something as complicated as the climate.
 
That is why meteorology is more of a science than these "climatologists". These people are nothing more than computer modelers than have NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD to their maddness.
 
But you and the media keep putting your FAITH in their data. Because that is all that it amount to.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071108155409.htm
 
quote-
Cars and light trucks powered by advanced diesel technology or hybrid technology can provide larger societal benefits than traditional gasoline-powered automobiles, according to a Rand Corporation working paper recently presented.
-end
 
Diesel the best, then hybrids, ethanol not so good.

"With John Coleman, you have demonstrated that one person with iffy credentials can get a ton of mindshare simply because he says something that people want to hear."
 
The corrected version:
With Algore, you have demonstrated that one person with iffy credentials can get a ton of mindshare simply because he says something that people want to hear.

editor_karl
  
Aww, I thought we were having fun. I, at least, was interested in your opinions about many things, which is why I asked so many questions, quite a few of which were ignored, sadly. And, yes, nuance--there is a continuum, from a celebrity's wretched excess to living off the grid, to composting one's own waste while living in a yurt. You don't seem interested in addressing anything but the extremes.
  
blackadder5639
 
I am not aware of any valid debate over carbon dioxide's role as a greenhouse gas. Without greenhouse gases, Earth's surface could not sustain life because the atmosphere would hold no heat in. It is a pretty well-established fact that carbon dioxide contributes to keeping the Earth warm. All other things being equal, a higher percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause the atmosphere to hold more heat in. While it is true that human-created sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide only account for a fraction of the carbon dioxide emitted over the course of a given year, this does not tell the whole story. To simplify greatly, we are putting into the atmosphere a bunch of carbon that was sequestered as oil deep inside the Earth over the course of millions of years, and while carbon is constantly being released into the atmosphere and reabsorbed (by water and plants, for example) the rate at which such absorption occurs is not quite enough to keep up with the changes of the last several decades.
 
Furthermore, continued deforestation, increases in global temperature, and other factors are expected to result in a less carbon being naturally removed from the atmosphere--less flora to absorb it, and warmer ocean water that cannot hold as much carbon dioxide and that also evaporates more quickly, leading to more water vapor (also a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. There's more to it, of course, but I think the basic lesson here is that small changes to the system can have larger cumulative effects.
 
And yes, it is interesting to see the overwhelming majority of scientists, and groups that back the theory of man-made global warming. For you or me to fall back onto their conclusions doesn't prove anything in an argument, of course, but on the flipside, I think it's interesting to see the rabid anti-intellectualism of many global-warming deniers; as if scientists who dedicate their lives to studying this field, and who know a hundred times more about it than a layman ever will, couldn't possibly know what they're talking about, while anyone who can wipe his Cheeto-stained hands clean long enough to bang out a rant slamming global warming is heralded as a genius.
 
Sadly, I never owned anything as exciting as a 240SX--it was a Volvo 240 sedan (with lowered suspension and chunky sway bars, though!) followed by an 850 wagon, and most recently a Honda Fit, which is an awesome car that today gave me almost 39mpg on an in-city tank (never less than 35mpg, and always with a healthy dose of spirited driving.) As for your name, do you like snakes or Rowan Atkinson, or did I miss entirely?
  
brett8210
  
I don't think you can be convinced of anything. But let's try something. From your perspective, let's imagine a hypothetical world in which global warming really, actually is occurring (In this case I'm not arguing that it is occurring in our real world, but in the hypothetical world, it is.) What would you require to accept that fact? Is there any type of evidence that could ever possibly make you even consider that it might be true, and if so, what would it be?
  
mnorm1
  
Are you responding to me? Did I mention Al Gore? No, I did not. But like some others in this forum, you only respond to the strawmen you yourself have concocted, and not to genuine challenges.
 
I'm tired of being expected to defend strawmen from people who won't even answer a straight question.

240to850toFit,
 
Thanks for your reply! Yeah, I am a huge Rowan Atkinson fan (and I hate snakes...ewww)!
I've heard so many good things about the Fit..... :)

"Aww, I thought we were having fun. "
Well, golly gee, I thought we we were having fun too.
 
For what it's worth I have posted links to serious articles, written by climatologists, and meterologists, that do not agree with man made global warming. These are scientists who dedicate their lives to studying this field, and who know a hundred times more about it than a layman ever will. Most of the ones I have read agree the climate is getting warmer, due to cyclical sun activity.
 
I haven't called those who disagree with me, anti-intellectual, cheeto eaters. I do call them wrong.
 
If water vapor is a green house gas, does this mean hydrogen is not a "clean" energy source?

mnorm1, that's fair and makes a good basis for discussion.
 
I can't refute most links without simply posting counter-links of my own, but I think I can talk about water vapor. A lot of us tend to ignore it as a greenhouse gas because its atmospheric concentration is almost entirely a function of ambient temperature, and it reaches that concentration very quickly. Too quickly to affect that temperature, because it precipitates or evaporates right away. There isn't a limit to how much vapor can precipitate either.
 
CO2 reaches an equilibrium too, so some of it gets absorbed into the oceans, trees, and the rest stays in the atmosphere. But unlike water vapor, the more of it gets absorbed, the more slowly more CO2 can be absorbed (its concentration isn't only a function of atmospheric temperature, but of its own concentration too). The process is slow enough that we're outpacing the world's CO2 absorption abilities, so it spends enough time in the atmosphere to (allegedly) increase the temperature through the greenhouse effect.

But Carlisimo the absorption phenomenon and our outpacing can not be established.
 
The actual amount of CO2 increase is minimal. As a percentage of the atmosphere it is microscopic. So even if you "increase" the CO2 there is little to no proof that it really has a demonstrable impact.
 
The ONLY evidence of rising temperature and their cause is rising temperatures. I do believe that many "scientists" are seeing the "correlation" and jumping to the conclusion of a "cause."
 
We can post article after article, but no one as been able to isolate a cause because the climate is too amorphous and complex to model in a computer and too diverse to postulate with any certainty.

Noticing correlations and trying to explain them is how science works! Look at dark matter, its existence is postulated only because it would explain some observations, astrophysicists have been struggling to find any harder evidence for years. The shape of South American and Africa led to the theory of plate tectonics. All accepted theories seem to have started out that way.
 
As for CO2, look at Mars. Run the blackbody equation to get the theoretical temperature of Mars based on solar input, frequency of the light it outputs, and its albedo, and you get a temperature that's lower than reality. The only factor that isn't captured in the blackbody equation is the greenhouse effect... and Mars's atmosphere is mostly CO2 and also really, really thin. That's what convinced me that CO2 is an effective greenhouse gas, anyway. Its concentration on earth has almost doubled over a century, I'd hardly call that insignificant.

"Its concentration on earth has almost doubled over a century,"
 
This article from 2002 doesn't agree with that.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
 
They show an increase of about 20% over 400 years. They also had this to say: ... during times of cooling the CO2 changed after the temperature change, by up to 1000 years. This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect.
 
NOAA says CO2 concentration has increased 36% since about 1800.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm.
 
Each of these 2 sources agree CO2 has increased, neither supports doubling in a century. NOAA does finger human activities for the increase since 1800.

My bad, I knew we were at ~380ppm now, and remembered that in recent history (<100,000yrs) it'd been as low as 180ppm, but we were at ~260-280ppm before the industrial revolution and I was still thinking of that 180ppm number. I should've said 36% =]. I don't see where your 20% is coming from though.
As for the 1000yr lag, I don't see it (or anything else in that ice core article) going against global warming. The usual explanations for ice age causes are Milankovitch cycles and continental distribution, factors much larger than atmospheric content. It seems natural to me to think that CO2 concentrations would then drop in response: cooler oceans can hold more CO2 (eg. soda). The equilibrium point for atmospheric CO2 would drop as temperature dropped, so more of it would be absorbed into other sinks (like the Siberian soil that Gore's spoken about recently).

If accurate, the 1000yr lag would only suggest that those ice ages weren't caused by a drop in atmospheric CO2, but by something else. (Could be the case even now, but the evidence that there's another driver is even less well developed than the "it's our fault" theories.)

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the CO2 increase we've caused didn't have much of an effect for another 1000 years. All I'm convinced of is that it will, at some point.

"As for the 1000yr lag, I don't see it (or anything else in that ice core article) going against global warming." The authors noted it as unexpected. I didn't site the article as support "for or against" global warming; only for CO2 concentration.
 
There are other studies that show CO2 concentration levels over a span of hundreds of thousands of years doubling, then falling back on roughly a 150,000 year cycle. These swings could not have been man made.

I believe volcanic activity is one of the sources for CO2 swings that were/are obviously not "man made." My understanding is that everytime a "Mt. St. Helens" type of volcanic eruption occurs it is a MASSIVE CO2 release on an order that dwarfs human activity. That's EACH TIME a volcano erupts, not all volcanic activity as a whole.
 
All volcanic activity as a whole in a given decade or two simply dwarfs all man-made CO2 activity SINCE THE START OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. This basically goes back to what Brett said -- in the area of CO2 production, man's activity versus nature's activity in any given time frame is like the paramecium under the microscope.
 
Or to put it another way, if EVERY automobile disappeared off the planet TOMORROW the change in total CO2 output wouldn't be a drop in the bucket, it would be an H2O molecule in an olympic-sized swimming pool.

The CO2 cycles are pretty well documented up to 800,000 years ago, and they match the temperature cycles. I would say that external factors (Milankovitch cycles and continental positions) were responsible for the temperature changes, and those forced the changes in CO2 concentration. I think it only reinforces the idea that CO2 is related to atmospheric temperature.
 
What would convince me is if CO2 in the atmospheres on Mars and Venus could be shown not to have affected the temperatures of those planets at all (especially Mars, it's a simpler case).
 
*edit* Karl, I can't find anything supporting the volcano idea. The atmospheric CO2 charts that started in the '50s don't show any spikes representing eruptions, and google search result consensus is that volcanos contribute 150-220 million tons a year, compared to 22-26 billion for humans.

So at the very least, you're sources suggest we have approximately 1/10 the impact of Volcanos alone (not accounting for any of the other natural sources of CO2 -- of which there are many).

Karl,
I think you misread the numbers. Using carlisiomo's numbers, man contributes over 100 times more than volcanos.
This web site says man contributes 130 time more than volcanos.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
 
Regardless, that still doesn't change my view; we are in the warming portion of a cycle. Man does not control this cycle; man's impact on this cycle is minor if there is any impact at all.

I also think man contributes much more CO2 than volcanoes. how many active volcanoes are there? And how much can a few volcanoes emit? Meanwhile we have many, many industrial plants that run non-stop and car that emit lots of CO2.
 
Mnorm, man'n impact on the cycle is far from minor!

It took me a couple of seconds on Google to find out that there are over 1500 active volcanoes in the world.

http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html
 
This link will show temperature and co2 concentrations for the last 400,000 years. About 325,000 years ago co2 spiked to about 300 ppm, temperatures had increased about 11 degrees from the previous bottom of the cycle. Then over about 75,000 years co2 levels had decreased to around 190 ppm.
Please explain to me how this was man made.
 
Over the course of the last 400,000 years this cycle has happened 4 times, and we are currently in the phase of the cycle for increasing co2 levels.
 
Who thinks this and other natural cycles will end because they are inconvenient for man?

mnorm1, man is natural, anything we do is natural.

No one's disputing that CO2 concentrations don't fluctuate naturally. But they've kept below 300ppm for the last 400,000 years, now they're up to 380ppm, and I thought it was pretty well established that we spiked it up to that level. The dispute is whether or not the temperature vs. CO2 correlation will continue, now that CO2 concentrations are unusually high.
 
If you really need those old fluctuations to be man made, then all I can say is... cavemen farted big, and suffered massive depopulation every time they did.

technetium99, are all those 1500 volcanoes emitting lava or CO2 at the moment? If so, do they emit more than a typical fossil fuel plant?

Blackadder, I have no idea. I am a health care professional, not a vulcanologist. But I believe that by the very definition of "active" that they are producing at least some gas. Probably a lot of methane, CO2, sulphates, and phosphates and smaller amounts of more exotic stuff.
 
The question I have is why is the "worldwide consensus of scientists" not looking at any other potential causes of CO2 spikes other than simple pollution. In particular, if there are spikes during the time of the industrial revolution and in the twentieth century, what other common causes could their be? How about deforestation? In the industrial revolution pretty much all of Europe was deforested. In the twentieth century some parts of North America and huge areas of Central and South America were deforested. What effect would the loss of all the CO2 scrubbing plants have on the environment?
 
To try to bring this back on subject, I like Mazda, and I have always liked the Tribute and I would consider one of these hybrids, if they were sold in the southeast. But since they are only sold in California, that kind of tells you that all Mazda (through their masters at Ford) is doing is trying to placate the greenie wackos. (Please note: This does not mean that I think everyone who cares about the environment is a wacko. Only those idiots without functioning brains who seem to be controlling the public perception of environmentalism. I respect Ed Begley because he actually practices what he preaches, but Al Gore is nothing but a big fat hypocrite.)

moparbad,
man is natural, anything we do is natural.
 
I agree. I blame women.

I think there's some legal reason to sell a few hybrids in California. Some law was passed some years ago requiring automakers to sell so many zero emissions vehicles by around now (you can tell I don't know the details) and hybrids were allowed to count towards that, just in case real ZEVs weren't technically feasible in time.

Technetium99, I think the major reason why the focus is so unfairly on the auto industry is that politicians see that as a quick way to score political points.....as autos are the most visible pollutants to the public. But then they neglect other pollution sources and issues like deforestation. (It also appears that deforestation isn't a problem in the US and that's probably why you don't hear about it. In Africa, deforestation was a big deal.)
 
Guys, you might like to check this out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm. Very interesting!

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/642-2.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
 
Solar global warming, not man made global warming.