Edmunds CarPool

I agree with 1487 - stick to cars and do not enter politics. Why do you stick around in California when over 60% supported Obama and is a solid blue state. Move to Utah or somewhere that will make you happy.

Karl:

Thank goodness you have the balls to speak the truth on Global Warming. Climate change is nothing more than than a "make work" program for Climate Scientists. This theory gives them access to grants to fund their research base upon flawed models.

They claimed we were headed for an Ice Age in the 70's as a result of man made pollution, than it was the hole in the Ozone in the 80's and early 90's. In each case their theories were wrong!!!

These Climate scientist idiots, along with the greens fanatics and left leaning nation news media, will destroy capitalism with these failed theories.

I agree with the first two posters. Please stick to cars so that I can continue reading your posts.

It appears the first 4 posters agree man made global warming is based on politics. I do too.

they want him to stick to cars because the truth hurts.

And how isnt Global Warming/Climate Change whatever not important to cars?

The Big 'o' just forced america to comply with CA emmision rules.

Which to me is mind blowing that we would allow the state of CA to set standards for anything.

Esspically given their track record of:

Balancing Budgets,
Fighting Drugs,
Fighting Poverty,
Setting Education Standards and failing to me them,
Fight crime,
Giving people their Income Tax Refund money.

and thats the short list of goverment failures, Yet we just blindly accept that they know how the world/universe work, to the point of regulating anything.

It's worth pointing out that the risk of manmade climate change is not the only reason that fuel efficiency standards are important now.

First, the local effects of vehicle exhaust are very real and easily identified.

Second, the importation of oil is a strain on our trade deficit (a reallocation of wealth away from us), a risk to national security, and a risk to our future economy.

Third, I don't see this as an undue burden on "poor" people. They should be buying cars that already meet these standards (Yaris, Versa, Fit, Aveo, Fiesta, Civic, Corolla, Cavalier, Focus) especially when you consider the volitile price of fuel. This won't change much on that end of the spectrum.

Please keep in mind that Obama just gave your state the right to set these (which you must have saw coming months ago). It's the people you elected who are making the policies. Your GOP governor torch in hand at the front of the mob.

I'm looking forward to reading the comments on this topic. Maybe it'll make up for the Tweets eh? haha....not likely.

BUT ANYWAYS:

I think the 3 points Karl has listed are valid, and do exist. However, I don't necessarily think they are the complete picture. I hate George Clooney's rants as much as the next person. I am annoyed that anyone famous thinks it is their right and duty to force their opinions on the world.

That being said, I'm not going to deny that everything humans do has an effect on the planet - though keep in mind that could be said for every creature. We are animals just as much as a beetle that destroys forests, so why should we care any more then the beetle? One might argue we should care because we understand, because we're self-aware, etc. This is an ethical issue, and can never be agreed upon.

I realize the futility of trying to debate this topic in text, so I'll sum it up. I don't necessarily buy into the HUMANS ARE DESTROYING THE WORLD line of thinking, especially not the extremist views promoted by the media and by celebrities. I do think that our every day decisions effect the environment, and that we should be streamlining our lives to use less and deposit less. This is not for fear of an ice age or melted ice-caps (even if those things happen, we would survive as a race). On the contrary, its just common sense to use less and try to be better.

"they want him to stick to cars because the truth hurts."

Not really. I agree that the anti global warming sentiment is going overboard but that doesnt mean Karl's post ads anything to the discussion. As always he insults, demeans and ridicules those who don't agree with him 100% and that kind of prevents people on the fence from taking him seriously. Besides, this really is above his pay grade. Stick to reviewing cars and the industry especially if you cant post on a topic without going all political and expressing your ire towards anyone who isnt republican.

What I find comical about many people going on and on about the "liberal media" and other such nonsense is that they only bring that up when its convenient. Most of Karl's fans support the notion that american automakers are inferior and largely deserve their fate. This is the exact same position adopted by the "liberal media" and no one seemed to complain. Shift to talk about global warming and people are ready to hang media types from the nearest tree. Try to be consistent.

bepperb,

Increased mileage standards dont reduce driving. Only higher prices do that. CAFE is about 30 years old and we have not reduced our dependence on foreign oil during ythat time. I dont get why we think that more mileage standards will produce new results. Thats insane.

somebody tell the Governator to read this:

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090127/OPINION01/901270309

In response to bepperb's point as pasted below:
"Second, the importation of oil is a strain on our trade deficit (a reallocation of wealth away from us), a risk to national security, and a risk to our future economy."

I'm not sure why or how this idea of the "trade deficit" was foisted back upon the modern consciousness. The concept of wealth that underlies this particular tenet is that that nation is richest who holds the most cash or currency. Essentially, hoard all that you can and then you're richest. This is an OLD concept of economics called mercantilism that Adam Smith attacked over 200 years ago in his book Wealth of Nations!

Adam Smith posits that the proper definition of trade is not which direction currency or gold flows, but whether or not the parties involved are better off at the end of the exchange. Who gives a darn if the numbers say we're sending more dollars overseas than we're getting back? The better question is does the trade benefit all parties involved?

And no, a trade deficit does not guarantee that the US is going deeper and deeper into debt.

Trade defecit aside, do you not see the US purchasing billions of dollars a year of foreign oil a reallocation of wealth? At the very least, that money could be purchasing other items, increasing our overall wealth. And the problem with your Adam Smith quote is that the constant deficit devalues our currency over the long term. Try not to post pre-keynesian economic theory here, it's not relevant.

And 1487, fuel mileage standards don't decrease driving. I never said they did. In fact, having a more efficient fleet would actually encourage driving more. The assumption is that the net outcome will be less fuel consumed. And it is an assumption, but one that isn't proven wrong by the past 20 years, as CAFE wasn't the only factor in the increase of miles driven or fuel consumed. The problem with raising prices with a higher fuel tax is that it won't happen. I'd be all for it. So CAFE is our inferior solution to reducing fuel consumption. It is crappy. No argument there. That doesn't change the fact that the objective it's trying to accomplish is valid.

Well said Karl, except you're (mostly) preaching to the choir here. I could have personally added a few more causes to the supposed "climate change", but brevity being the soul of wit, you pretty much said it all.

The one thing I will add, however, is that Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever, has become a RELIGION. Think about it - the parallels between the two are virtually identical.

Hmm,

I imagine this was chosen as it has something to do with cars... emissions etc. I don't know that this discussion has no place in this forum.

That being said: This information is good, but as with most arguments that attack radical attention-hungry political activists... no arguments, logical or practical will change their minds... it's not the issue that they care about...

While entertaining and interesting for me, I'm afraid this blog might have been a waste of your time (in terms of affecting anyone's opinion - not already in your choir).

Believing that science has nothing to do with this issue is what's religion.

Explaining the mechanisms of manmade global warming wouldn't prove to a layman the rate at which it will happen, nor the ways to forestall it. That requires quantitative analysis, and only an expert can point to a coefficient and say he would've used a different one. But any of us can read about it qualitatively. You'd then at least understand why a lot of people think it's theoretically possible, if not probable.

Telling us that we're hateful control freaks is ridiculous. Some are, some aren't... it doesn't matter. Either argue that our proposed solutions aren't worth it even if manmade global warming happens, or argue that one of the following is wrong: paleogeologic data showing gas concentrations and atmospheric temperatures; current atmospheric gas concentration per atmospheric layer; the greenhouse effect (infrared absorption); our estimations of carbon dioxide sinks and sources; solar irradiance data; and whatever else you might like. Do so and I'll listen a lot more than if you tell me I'm out to destroy your way of life, as if I hated cars myself.

Here's a simple explanation of the development of the theory, for any interested: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

"Trade defecit aside, do you not see the US purchasing billions of dollars a year of foreign oil a reallocation of wealth? At the very least, that money could be purchasing other items, increasing our overall wealth. And the problem with your Adam Smith quote is that the constant deficit devalues our currency over the long term. Try not to post pre-keynesian economic theory here, it's not relevant."

The question is whether or not the purchase of the "other items" you talk about would be as useful or profitable in use as the oil we import. As our cars will not suddenly jump in efficiency, a reallocation to another activity would necessitate less driving overall. This could have an effect on the transportation of goods.

So yes, I brought up auto efficiency. Should we legally mandate it? That's another issue entirely. Forcing efficiency now will force automakers to devote more money to R&D, which will mean higher prices as they attempt to recoup those costs over the long term. This will mean more expensive cars, or fewer cars with luxuries to keep the price down. Cars cannot simply jump in efficiency overnight, and there is no massive conspiracy on the part of automakers to give business to oil companies.

Regardless, a government /mandate/ means a loss of freedom of choice for consumers like myself. To me, and I am sure to others as well, that is an unacceptable cost.

And the reason our currency continues falling in value is that the Federal Reserve continues to print money out of thin air to finance the trade deficit. Incidentally, low interest rate policy on the part of the Fed also helped finance the recent housing bubble.

If you would, try not to post pre-monetarist/pre-Austrian economic theory here. It's not relevant.

Okay let me ask all the scientists on this forum a question (apparently, passing biology or chemistry 101 during freshman year of college qualifies one as being an expert). Let's say Karl is 100% correct in that man's recklessness on the planet has NO influence on "climate change" and this entire movement is a crock. Even if that is the case, does anyone believe excess pollution and smog laced skies are completely harmless? It's a geniune question. It seems people are more concerned with uncovering bandwagon conspiracies than the larger issue that Americans are wasteful and environmentally irresponsible. I'll never forget the first time I rode into LA and saw that smog cloud hovering above as if they were filming some far fetched sci-fi flick. Global warming or not, that's a pretty nasty and disturbing site and I would want to do something about it.

Yes, people are stupid for listening to celebreties as if they are scientists just as they are dumb for listening to anyone else with an opinion who is speaking from the seat of their pants. Americans are gullable and that's nothing new so I'm curious as to why people are so shocked that many people are all of sudden "green" conscious. I seriously ponder why anyone would devote so much time to try and go against the grain on a topic such as this. If it's a crock then it'll run it's course just like every other fad in this country. On the flip side, at least more people are conscious about being less wasteful which I doubt anyone could argue is a bad thing.

bepperb,

Just because higher fuel taxes wont happen doesnt mean we have to embrace or defend CAFE. Its a failure across the board. The most common excuse offered is "well we would have used even more fuel if it wasnt for CAFE" and that is purely speculative. The oil embargoes of the 1970s ended the era of big V8 powered RWD cars before CAFE was even implemented. So did new emissions rules that predated CAFE. The point is that the era of large, gas guzzlers was going to end with or without CAFE. The gas shortages and price hikes of the 1970s were what convinced Americans to check out small, efficient Japanese cars in the first place. Once that started the shift to smaller cars and FWD was unstoppable. All CAFE did was give automakers an excuse to turn SUVs into passenger cars. CAFE isnt a "solution" to our consumption problems because we have been consuming more and more since it was implemented.

In response to 1487's point as pasted below:
"What I find comical about many people going on and on about the "liberal media" and other such nonsense is that they only bring that up when its convenient. Most of Karl's fans support the notion that american automakers are inferior and largely deserve their fate. This is the exact same position adopted by the "liberal media" and no one seemed to complain. Shift to talk about global warming and people are ready to hang media types from the nearest tree. Try to be consistent."

First of all, inferiority of American vehicles is an entirely separate issue from whether or not human-induced global warming is a legitimate case. And secondly, there's nothing that says prevailing media opinion can't be accurate on one topic, and inaccurate on another.

Inferiority of American vehicles is primarily about a lack of materials quality, build quality, and poor overall fit and finish. For those issues, the automakers have nowhere to look but in the mirror. Mainstream media certainly plays a role in disseminating that view point, but it's far from the only source. You can find that same viewpoint echoed on any automotive media source as well.

Anyone can log on to Edmunds, Car & Driver, or Motor Trend and read staff reviews, as well as owner reviews. In addition, you can go to a Honda dealership and a Dodge dealership and see for yourself just how badly the Caliber and Avenger pale in comparison to the Civic and Accord. That information is easily available, and accessible to anyone.

It's different when the media talks about global warming. An average person can't just get up and go measure carbon content, or global temperature change. In addition, the scientific journals where results of global warming studies are published are vastly less accessible to John Q. Public than staff and owner reviews posted on Edmunds, Motor Trend, or Car & Driver. We rely more on the media to translate the scientific data for us.

And that's a problem, because whereas we can easily get access to anything we need to know about whether to buy the Honda or the Dodge, the media's presentation of only one side of the global warming debate is NOT giving us all the information we need to develop an informed viewpoint.

1487, I agree with your post that CAFE sucks, and economics ridded us of horribly inefficient vehicles without it. But I think this is off topic now.

We (in this blog) all agree using less gas would be good.

We seem to disagree on whether or not government should do anything to discourage it's use, why the government would discourage it's use, and how the government should.

I'd put myself in the yes, for economic reasons, and via a gas tax or tax incentives for efficient (not necessarily hybrid) vehicles.

I loved the comment that global warming is like religion. It really is. Once someone buys in to a stance, changing it is impossible, not matter how little that stance is based on.

chavis10 - You say theres nothing wrong with being green. And on a personal level there isn't.

But what the Church of Green demands is goverment action. And some early estiamtes of goverment action put the inital cost at 11+ TRILLION dollars.

money that A), no one has, B) could ethier be saved (penny earned), or C) spent elsewhere.

If you burn that 11+ trillion dollars fixing a problem that isn't there, then what have you real gotten?

Plus as it stands, the amout of c02 created by everything but humans, still stands at roughly 20:1.

And even then, the amount of influnce C02 has on global tempratures is in the fractions of a percent.

So while, I'm not a scientist, I know math.

working to control 1/20th of c02 production, which contributes, lets say for sake of easy math, and to aim high. something that infulences the global temperatsion .5/100%, tells me that we are solving a problem that does not exist.

(just to sum it all up if all humans stopped producing any and all c02, the influence on global temperatures, would be in the range of .025%. Which means that if earths average temp is say 20degC, we could lower it .5DdegC.)

but we'd all be dead.

Humans are changing the planet. Possibly not as much as some scientists claim, but we've contributed to the ozone hole, changes in ice melting caused by carbon deposit, deforestation, horrible air pollution in many of the world's cities, etc.

But Edmunds discusses cars, so the above's moot.
Auto companies have shown it's possible to build vehicles that are fun to drive and also use fuel efficiently.

Meanwhile, Karl, would you prefer living in a Los Angeles CA without any smog controls on cars? Mexico City and others are good examples; you'll get all the .

...HP the engine can make, and all the pollution too.

Who says pointing out the BS of global warming equates to driving cars with no smog control?

Smog control has been going on for over 30 years and it's a complete success. All you have to do is look at L.A.'s air today and L.A.'s air in 1977. Vastly improved -- despite MILLIONS of additional vehicles on the city's roads.

HOWEVER, even with cars producing essentially no pollution these days the Church of Climate Change says we MUST DO MORE! They know they can't claim cars as polluters in the traditional sense, so they've decided CO2 is a pollutant. Yes, CO2 is what you're exhaling as you read this. It's what plants make. It's what every natual substance on the planet makes when it decomposes, but the Church of Climate Change has decided it's a pollutant (because that's pretty much the only thing cars emit in 2009).

Why did they do this? For the reasons I listed above. And it's idiotic. And a sh*tload of my tay money will now be spent to "save" us from global warming while raising the cost of just about everything you buy(in the middle of an economic meltdown).

And that pisses me off so I'm writing about it.

Any other questions?

plants make oxygen, not CO2. they eat our CO2.

The next time you visit Washington DC, try going to the Koshland Science Museum. It might make you change your mind. The evidence that climate change is happening is pretty compelling (see http://realclimate.org) and I'm disappointed that the usual "we've got nothing to worry about" attitude cropped up in this posting.

Just to show you what sort of impact man has in the short term on the environment, the power cut on the east coast in 2003 which shut down the coal fired power plants in Ohio for three days improved air quality dramatically ( http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=930 ) by 90%.

So the likiehood that humans can cause long-term effects are high.

Sorry. You're correct.

Plants don't make it when they "exhale" but they make it when they decompose.

BTW, since they "eat" CO2 cutting our vehicle emissions will starve plants, right? I don't see how the greenies can be for that...

People will support globam warming (or climate change if you want) until it affects them personally. If Obama raises prices for everything to "fight" global warming someone has to pay. As we know rich people are always okay and rich during any regime. They were doing okay during Nazis, Communists, Perestroika, in China and they will do okay during Obama. Ordinary people who elected Obama will pay the price. It will be interesting to watch how they will react - revolt or just cave in and suffer.

Hollywood and Bono types - they are reach but not for too long. The business model is collapsing. All albums made by Bono can be downloaded in single file for free using Torrent. Same happens with Hollywood movies. I personally do not care what they do or what they think.

Galileo was shut down by mainstream media too.

Karl,
In the past on and off you've raised some fairly intelligent questions about climate change/global warming. But this has to be the most insulting and ill-informed post I've seen from you. Since you're so quick to judge those with whom you disagree, let's itemize some responses:

0: First referring to people as "scientists" -- in quotes. And just where did you get your Ph.D., and in what subject? Geology? Astronomy? Physics? Biology? Oh that's right you don't have one. Let's not cheapen other people's degrees, ok? It is an intense focus in a subject--and unlike a bachelor's degree, the goal of a philosophical graduate degree is to GIVE BACK new knowledge, not just take from what is already been done.

1: Hate. While I'm sure there are many people who feel guilt and self-hate about our success, many of the scientists who have come to the conclusion that man-made causes for climate change are real, are red-blooded capitalists. In fact many of them see business opportunities in a new energy economy. So which is it Karl--are they profiteers or communists? You can't have it both ways.

2. Hypocracy. If we're going to use hypocracy of the messenger as a reason to discredit the theory, then you better throw out Christianity and all other religions, sobriety, morality, and pretty much the word of anyone you speak to. Furthermore, the footprint of any one person--however high-living--is miniscule next to the footprint of the system overall. I don't like hypocracy either, but it's irrelevant.

3. Hegemony. Isn't it possible that more and more informed people with credentials in this field agree with climate change because more and more of them have come to the conclusion it's real? Occam's razor, Karl: The simplest explanation is probably right. That's a lot simpler than it being some vast conspiracy.

Anyway, sorry for getting so personal. Normally I enjoy what you write; but you revel in your ignorance about this subject and then insult people you don't know who are doing the best work they can. And frankly, many of them are geniuses. It was just to much to let slide this time.

Wow, not sure where to start...but I'll get through it.

"In the past on and off you've raised some fairly intelligent questions about climate change/global warming. But this has to be the most insulting and ill-informed post I've seen from you."

That's true, I've already asked all the intelligent questions. Open-minded folks with critial analysis abilities have pondered them and come to logical conclusions. The disciples of the Church of Climate Change won't alter their opinion regardless of intelligent questions, so I've gone to the only place left -- mockery and insults. That's the beauty of a blog -- it doesn't have to be "fair and balanced" (or whatever term you like), it can just be me making fun of idiocy.

"Let's not cheapen other people's degrees, ok?" Having a degree in something and using logical thinking have nothing in common. If anything I'd suggest a person without a degree making logical conclusions is far less insulting than a person with a degree making blatantly incorrect statements for political gain. Regardless, a degree is only one tool in the tool box. If you have a golden hammer and use it to bash yourself in the forehead you're still an idiot.

"So which is it Karl--are they profiteers or communists? You can't have it both ways."
Really? I'd say you just described over half the people in politics. There are certainly plenty of people proving you can have it both ways (or at least try to).

"If we're going to use hypocracy of the messenger as a reason to discredit the theory, then you better throw out Christianity and all other religions, sobriety, morality, and pretty much the word of anyone you speak to."
Wow, and I thought I was cynical. Sorry so many people in your world are so two-faced. I still think it's possible to have actions and words in sync -- and I still don't have patience for those who don't.

"Occam's razor, Karl: The simplest explanation is probably right. That's a lot simpler than it being some vast conspiracy."
AGREED! That's why suggesting some complex relationship between human activity and global temperatures (based on man-made computer models that can't even predict the temperature next week) is lunacy compared to the simple facts of constantly (and NATURALLY) shifting temperature cycles that have existed since the earth first cooled. Thanks for the support.

"...but you revel in your ignorance about this subject and then insult people you don't know who are doing the best work they can."
The best they can? Did you really type that? I would quote Sean Connery from "The Rock" after Nicholas Cage says, "I'll do my best" but let's just say I'm not interested in people's "best" -- I'm interested in accurate scientific study based in fact, not popular consensus.

Karl,

"I'm interested in accurate scientific study based in fact, not popular consensus."

Unfortunately, your blog entry does not give this impression at all. I looks more like you want to find reasons to discredit work whose outcome you do not like.

Concerning science: There are two separate questions, actually.
(i) Does the climate get warmer?
(ii) If so, why does it get warmer?

The first question is a comparatively easy question because you can rely on hard data. Here, the overwhelming consensus (even among many opponents of man-made climate change) is that is has been getting warmer rapidly over the last 200 years or so (on average of course; there are always year-to-year fluctuations). In case you don't believe the many accurate scientific studies, based on ice cores for instance, just hop in your car, drive to the northern Rocky Mountains (or the Alps or any other large mountain range) and compare the length of the glaciers with photographs from 50 years ago.

The second question is much more tricky because to answer the "why" question you need a theory of what is going on (and unfortunately nobody can do lab experiments with the sun and earth to test said theory). I'd be the first to agree that it is presently not clear to what extent the observed warming is due to natural cycles and to what extent it is man-made.

However, even if there was a small chance that *we* are causing it, wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution, or at least continue researching the reasons instead of insulting the people who are trying do this (and I am not talking about George Clooney here)? But this would require giving up this cock-sureness

"I've already asked all the intelligent questions."

wouldn't it? Sorry, I usually really like what you write about cars.

It amazes me that people are surprised by the tone and arrogance of this one post as if they have never seen this before. Whether its cars or global warming, the attitude projected is the same. I guess people only pick it up when he attacks something as sacred as "Climate change". I do agree that this needs to stay focused on cars but the logic applied isn't going to get any more sound.

I would like the global climate change/global warming supports to answer the following questions.

1) What is the perfect global temperature?
1a) Why?

2) How much control do you expect or want over the entire climate?
2a) How do you plan on achiving it?

-----

Editorial for 2a) at home where you have a thermostat, the best system are able to keep the temperature with +/- 1 degree. Most allow +/- 2~3 degrees. And work on ethier warming the room +3 degrees, or cooling -3 degrees so as to not run 24/7. If in a 'closed' house, we are only able to control temps within 3 degrees. How are we going to control the planets temperature within 1?

opfreakx,

I'll have a shot at your questions even though I do not count myself as a hard-core global-warming supporter. (Btw, wouldn't that be somebody who supports globally warming up the earth ...?)

1) What is the perfect global temperature?
I have no clue, and I am sure it depends on whom you ask, or less sloppily, what the goal of the "optimization" would be.

2. How much control do you expect or want over the entire climate?
Looking at historic records that show wide temperature swings I do not expect much control in the long run.

HOWEVER, and this is the key, i.m.h.o., any rapid change of the climate - for whatever reason, natural or man-made - is highly undesirable (and the temperature changes observed over the last 200 years are rapid by historic standards). Rapid climate changes are potentially very disruptive: sea levels rise or fall by dozens of feet, agricultural areas turn into deserts while others open up. All of this, *if* it materialized, would lead to mass migrations and the accompanying fight for territory and resources etc.

So the upshot is, while I do not know what the best temperature would be, I am pretty sure I do not want the climate to change rapidly in either direction. Now maybe the current changes are all natural in which case we are out of luck - but I'd rather not make an extra contribution to the warming if I can help it.

Opfreak- is that a serious question?

PS- if a house were truly closed you would die. Outside air always enters your home. That is not a good analogy because the atmosphere is air tight where as the structure of your house is not (and can't be if you want to live and breathe).

Here's a question I would like to ask why are people surprised that the community of experts are split on this subject? When has there ever been controversial topic that hasn't had the scientific community taking sides against each other. That's why people are "studying" this and other issues- because no one has the complete facts. If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. For every one link somebody posts to support their perspective someone else can find one to counter the claim so where does that leave us?

"And a sh*tload of my tay money will now be spent to "save" us from global warming while raising the cost of just about everything you buy(in the middle of an economic meltdown)."

Well a sh!tload of our tax money went to supporting a war based on false pretenses and outright lies so, what are you gonna do? I suggest you run for Senate and then you can determine how peoples' tax money is spent. That's the nature of the government- We the People have no say in the decisions that are made so get over it.

chavis10

yes the questions were serious.

What temperature should the planet be at? After all if we are worried about it changing, and want to control it. Wouldn't we want to determine what we should keep it at? Otherwise, whats the point?

and a house is much more a closed system then the planet. Sure I could draw boundray lines around the whole planet, but the number of variables is vast orders of magnitudes larger then in a house.

chavis10 says "I would like to ask why are people surprised that the community of experts are split on this subject?"

The answer is that on the fundamental point of climate change occurring they are not.

The "split" if you want to call it that, among climate scientists is whether we're facing a 1m or 7 meter rise in sea level over the next 100-200 years. I think something like 60% of the cities in the world are around 1 meter above the current sea level so you're going to have to deal with a large population shift no matter what happens. This of course assumes we continue our current trend of CO2 emissions, and as you've all pointed out earlier, it won't impact the rich all that much as they can afford to move to higher ground. The rest of us cannot.

The odds of a 7 meter rise occurring are about 5-10%. If you can do something to make those odds decrease its just plain commonsense to try.

starbird

the split is between scientist that belive the earth is warming, those that dont.

And even within that group that belive the earth is warming, theres a split as to why.

Lets ignore the fact that the planet COOLED in the past ~10 years. And 1998 was a peak temp year. Somehow that gets ignored. Yet C02 production INCREASED in that same time frame. So hmm, more C02 = lower temperatures.

"and a house is much more a closed system then the planet. Sure I could draw boundray lines around the whole planet, but the number of variables is vast orders of magnitudes larger then in a house. "

My point was that outside substances don't infiltrate the earth's atmosphere where as outside substances DO infiltrate your home. they have to as your home can't produce it's own oxygen. The boundry line is the atmosphere which traps air (except for those pesky holes) so folks can breathe. Again, bad analogy.

Chavis10, sorry I just disagree with you because you are wrong.

The point of the system is to know what you can control, and what variables are involed.

In a home you know what the outside temps are/can be, what wind conditions could be. And you know what losses you have. Finally, and most importantly, you can control the areas of loss.

Can you do that with the global climate? how much control do you have over its variables?

Want a clearer analogy?

Worrying about Controling C02, is like worrying about leaving your houses windows open, before you even finished closing the walls.

I think a good question one could ask of the group here, would be if you could somehow calculate how much these changes to automobile regulation would cost, what better ways could that money be spent and better serve the environment.

I mean, let's say these regulations will cost 1000 extra dollars for every car sold. So 12-15 billion dollars per year. We really can't find a better way to spend that chunk of change more effectively than automobile pollution?

There might be a solution that would please everyone here... Costing less than this, and having a larger impact. But it wouldn't be politically popular at the moment, I guess. Who cares about jet engine / offroad diesel / coal plant pollution.

"My point was that outside substances don't infiltrate the earth's atmosphere where as outside substances DO infiltrate your home."

Ummm...you mean like sunlight, solar heat, solar wind, solar radiation? Yup, those outside substances have no impact on the earth's atmoshphere...

Amen brother Karl! Excellent post. The arrogance that we humans have to believe that we are the cause of everything.

In any event we, the U.S. appear to be heading down every path possible to delay economic recovery. "Climate change" will be another economic black hole. Do Russia, China and India really believe or care? Will they slow their economies over "climate change?" I don't think they will.

Lastly, there are scientists on both sides.

as I was doing more reading. Its amazing we think we can control C02 and do something.

~98% of C02 is created by things OTHER then humans

You were doing research? Oh man, the jig is totally up. Now you're NEVER going to believe in man-made global warming!

Just stop. If you keep quoting facts here you're going to rock some people's world to the core!

I'll grant you the scientific debate isn't closed, but the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory still sounds like the strongest out there to me.

Please tell me what it is that you disagree with:

- The greenhouse effect exists on planets with atmospheres
- The greenhouse effect accounted for approx. 32K (degrees Kelvin) before the Industrial Revolution
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas (absorbs light in the infrared spectrum)
- CO2 is responsible for ~9% of the greenhouse effect, 2nd after water vapor (methane is 3rd)
- Increases in temperature cause the oceans to release water vapor and CO2
- Increases in temperature are caused by Milankovich cycles, increased solar irradiance, or an increased greenhouse effect
- Milankovich cycles appear to explain the first few hundred years of emergence out of recent ice ages
- The H2O, CO2, and H4O released by oceans after Milankovich cycle-caused warming was responsible for the next 10-15,000 years of warming
- Atomspheric CO2 concentration during ice ages was approx. 190ppm
- Atomspheric CO2 concentration during interglacial periods before the Industrial Revolution was approx. 280ppm
- Atomspheric CO2 concentration has risen past 380ppm in the last several decades
- The rise in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations has been accounted for by economic calculations as manmade
- Volcanic CO2 emissions are 0.07% as large as human CO2 emissions
- Half of the CO2 we've given off is in the atmosphere; the rest in oceans and plants
- The oceans and plants are absorbing new CO2 more slowly (saturation / over-fertilization)
- Solar irradiance increased in the first half of the 20th century and correlated with temperature increases
- Solar irradiance has not appreciably increased since 1978 (the year we started getting good measurements)
- The stratosphere is cooling, in accordance with AGW and not with a warming sun
- Computer models that predict AGW successfully back-predict recently-observed oceanic temperature changes
- Computer models have a resolution of 50mi^2 or mroe, not good enough for weather, just averages
- Attacking the theory is more convincing than attacking its supporters

Oops, typo - volcanic emissions are 0.7% of human emissions, not 0.07%.

"Ummm...you mean like sunlight, solar heat, solar wind, solar radiation? "

None of those qualify as substances. They have no mass. They are forms of energy.

Weather channel founders thoughts:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

I'm glad people arguing this topic really think that any amount of argument is going to change anything.

What if we do change our lifestyle and be a "greener" society .... and nothing happens.

Oops?

These are all theories. No one knows what will improve or affect what. What impact human activity has done, what it is doing, and what it can change in the future.

Oil is my friend. Without it, we wouldn't have Tuppaware parties!