Amen

Drivers have gotten used to high gas prices and have adapted (eg, by spending less on other things). Given the "bigger is better" culture, the old habits wouldn't die away unless one of the following happen:
- Gas prices go up and remain at ridiculous levels ($4.50/gallon or more).
- A change of heart from manufacturers. (This won't happen as long as manufacturers feel there's lots of money to be made in large vehicles.)
- Better public education about large vehicles, fuel efficiency, global warming, safety, etc.
- Government regulation and/or taxation.

A major problem that I see as Americans is that there is a very strong "Do as I say, not as a I do" mentality. Everyone wants a healthier planet Earth, but only a fraction of the populations is willing to do what it takes to make that happen.
 
In the grand scheme of things, I am insignificant. So, if I want to drive a big vehicle, why shouldn't I? After all, I can't make that much of a difference.
 
Now, multiply that by a hundred million.
 
Also, don't blame the environmental problems on auto manufacturers. They are in a business, and the job of any business is to make money. If they are making more money selling bigger vehicles, then they will do so.
 
Education can only take you so far. If education could solve everything, then we would have no drug problems.
 
And keep the government out of it. They would make gas cost 10$ a gallon to reduce driving, and end up crashing our economy.
 
The idea that people drive less because gas is higher is rediculous. Your average person doesn't do that much recreational driving, it's simply too expensive and time consuming. Increasing gas prices have driven people to drive more efficiently, such as combining errands in a trip to town, but it hasn't reduced our fuel consumption. In fact, our fuel consumption is continuing to rise, despite ever more efficient vehicles, stricter standards, and such.

"Also, don't blame the environmental problems on auto manufacturers....the job of any business is to make money."
 
Well, nobody is saying cars are the only cause of pollution/global warming. In fact, automobiles contribute about "only" 30%. SO the problem is much more than automobiles....... Obvioulsy, automobiles cannot be the only focus of any serious environmental effort.
Yes, the job of every business is to make money and as long as there's money to be make in huge vehicles manufacturers will keep making them. So some other influence must be in action to reduce the number of these vehicles: education, (sensible) regulation, taxes, fines, etc....whatever would be effective.
 
Yes, people would drive less when gas is expensive. When they can't help driving less, they will resort to buying the most fuel-efficient cars possible for their need. These are facts.
 
"They would make gas cost 10$ a gallon to reduce driving, and end up crashing our economy."
Obviously, if taxation were introduced, it would be done in a sensible manner so as to not cripple the economy. We expect our public officials to be sensible and creative.
And we can't leave the government out of this. It's primarily government's duty to make sure we live in a safe, polution-free environment and if it doesn't act nobody will......at the very least it has to take the initiative.
 
Our fuel consumption has not reduced for several reasons:
- Poor town planning in many large cities make a good mass transit system unfeasible or undesirable.
- Manufacturers have opted to increase power instead of fuel economy. This blog talks about the '07 and '89 Camrys in an earleir entry. Basically, the current Camry V6 is slightly more efficient but far more powerful (268 hp). Imagine the fuel-economy savings if the current Camry made 220 hp instead.
- Brilliant marketing has made many people falsely believe that the need large SUVs when they actually don't.
 
The notion that automakes respond to customer demands is only partly true. Often, manufacturers create un-needed products and convince consumers to buy them via marketing. (Don't believe me? Check out the "diamonds are forever" campaign by De Beers.) The success or failure of any product is often a function of marketing.
 
"Education can only take you so far." Yes, that's true, but like marketing, education can work.

blackadder5639 - What problem that the goverment has defend has goverment defeated?
 
War on drugs? War on poverty? now what War on global warming? How much will that cost?
 
And manufactures , err some are responding... Pirus sales are incearsing, and price on the car is dropping so more people will buy them.
 
Taxation is not the answer. Sorry, its just not. Why do you want to give the goverment billions if not trillions more dollars? And if everyone just saved a little energy and polluted less it would add up to something big... Then even a small tax would add up to a large impact on the economy, as more and more money gets taken out and put into goverment.
 
Someone quoted a figure saying that roughly 30% of some of the pollution.
 
How much driving will have to be reduced. someone said that if everyone drove something more efficenent the problem would be smaller.
 
Just absorb that thought for a second... if over night our entire fleet of vechials magically just doubled in gas milage ... then wow, cars are now 15% of the problem. And do you expect that to honestly happen?
 
---------
 
And where has the honest debate gone? Have you all already accepted the fact that global warming is caused by humans? I'm sorry, global warming maybe happening... But beliving that man is responsible is a leap of faith. Welcome to the curch of global warming vs the science of it.

opfreak, very good points. Thanks for bringing this up. I also think that global warning may or may not be happening, but it sure is not caused by our collective farting.
 
Look up eugenics on wiki. It has very strong parallels with global warming. It is mind boggling that eugenics was taken seriously at all. But it was. Numerous countries had enacted policy changes in early XX century because of eugenics. Now it looks absolutely ridiculous, of course. I was reading some books about Darwin and his theories and it struck me how eerily similar eugenics and global warming crazes are.

Just for clarity.. I'm not denying tempratures are/maybe rising...
 
but I would argue against anyone that claims they know why. And anyone that says humans are the cause should imho be thought of in the same eyes as any minister.
 
Also to think that the global warming movement thats growing right now is pure and for the good of man is being blind. Its gaining ground because people figured out a way to make money off of it.
 
For example ethanol... esspically corn based. Farmers (who want money) and the enivormental curch (Who FELT this would help). Pushed this junk fuel down our thoarts. Now mandanting x amount of it. Good for farmers because it jacks up the price of corn... Bad for everyone else because well.. The price of EVERYTHING else food related went up.. and not just in the USA.. Wheat prices up, soy, rice, corn... Which then impacts everything from soda to you 99c hamburger.
 
While the enivorment takes an even bigger hit with the amount of water/land/and yes GASOLINE required to produce it.
 
But people like to FEEL they are helping... because every little bit helps. And heck helping is good. But FEELING like you helped when you really did more harm then good... geeze just stay out of the way.

Hi Opfreak! :)
 
"Someone quoted a figure saying that roughly 30% of some of the pollution."
I am the one who said that, at least on this blog and on Karl's some time ago. Karl confirmed I was right. So we all agree that autos are not the only causes of pollution and must not be the sole focus of any environmental reforms.
 
The "war on poverty" has failed because it is non-existent. When was the last time you heard any presidential candidate talk about the poor? They all talk about the "middle class", and sometimes, "business owners" or rich people.
Although the war on drugs has failed and is not the right approach (and I don't support it), there is little doubt that the drugs problem would be worse without it.
What about the things that government has got right, eg, public schools and universities?
 
Globa warming, well, it's easy to see why it's mostly due to human activity. The warming has been shown to be largely because of increased CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels. Since human activities produce most of the CO2 and greenhouse gases, it's easy to see that human activity is responsible for global warming. I don't see what's difficult to accept here.
 
Taxation would have an impact. It is not the only answer but would have an impact. In Europe cars are smaller primarily because of high prices of fuel and high taxes of cars with larger engines than 2.0 L. With such mechanisms people there buy larger cars only when they need them or the relatively few rich people who won't mind paying the taxes. (Although I must admit that as a car enthusiast, not having easy access to powerful cars would irritate me.)
 
Manufacturers would by themselves not start making cars much more efficient than they currently are except they sense huge profits or customers force them to. Customers are not going to force them to because they (customers) are, in general, largely ignorant or indifferent about global warming and pollution....and have a "bigger is better" mentality. The only way to force manufacturers is via the government.

"Also to think that the global warming movement thats growing right now is pure and for the good of man is being blind. Its gaining ground because people figured out a way to make money off of it."
 
Partly right. But you think those against global warming movement are not motivated by money too? GM and other Big Three comanies have been most vocal about CAFE standards and the likes because they don't yet have competitive low economy cars and feel that their profits would be cut a lot if legislation limited truck sales. Heavy industries have always been reluctant to take measures to reduce pollution and CO2 emissions because it would cost money and reduce profits in the short term.
On both sides on the argument there are people motivated by money/profits. But the against-global-warming side are far more motivated by money because they feal they would lose. Have you heard of any big corporation lobbying for the US or EU governments to tighten emissions regulations? No! Not even companies like Toyota and Honda with supposedly good green credentials! Most organizations pushing for green legislation are NGOs and the likes.
 
You're completely right about ethanol. I never supported that movement......it would make more sense if the ethanol could be produce from something that's not needed.....some waste product or something like that.

blackadder5639 -"Globa warming, well, it's easy to see why it's mostly due to human activity. The warming has been shown to be largely because of increased CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels. Since human activities produce most of the CO2 and greenhouse gases, it's easy to see that human activity is responsible for global warming. I don't see what's difficult to accept here."
 
I find it very hard to accept.
 
First off. This statement "The warming has been shown to be largely because of increased CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels"
 
is false. In fact C02 is a Lagging indicator of earth temprature. That is... as Earth Temprature Goes up. The amount of C02 in the atmosphere goes up. So Higher Temp CAUSES Higher C02... not the other way around.
 
secondly.
I dont know if the statement that human activity produces most of the C02. It would seem that all other natural processes would produce more then we have been able to.
 
Add to that that C02 plays one of the SMALLEST roles in global tempratures... I do not see why it is getting the most attention. Methane traps more heat, and water vapor is responsible for somewhere in the high 90% of global tempratures.
 
----
A Major question to ask is: What is the 'correct' global temperature, and what makes us humans think the temprature we have right now is it?
------
 
Then lower on the argument scale, but also important... earth tempratures have changed throughout time. most of that with no humans 'pollution'... do we just dismiss the fact that earths temprature is not constant, and can change on its own...
And if you can admit to the fact that it changes on its own... and i'll grant you that the temprature is rising... How much is it due to some natural cycle... or nautral change.. and how much is due to our activity? Can we ever known?
 
-------
 
As far as taxes. You and I will never see eye to eye.
 
I do not see why giving goverment more of my money will fix a problem. I feel we already give goverment to much money and power... i dont want to give them more. (public schools in alot of american cities are probably prime examples of the failure of goverment).
 
You see goverment as a solution and something that should protect us from somethign. I see goverment as a nessacery evil that PEOPLE should control.. not that the Goverment should control the people.

Hi Opfreak,
 
You've given me the most convincing argument yet against global warming. I think I definitely have to read more about it before I can formed a strong informed opinion. Thanks.
However, I somehow find it hard to see how the majority of nations and scientists could get it wrong. Since most major corporations are against the global-warming theory and have lots of money, I just don't know why they haven't paid for a lot of adverts to argue their point of view. If I were a rich business and felt a false theory threatened my business, I would be doing something along those lines. Why hasn't any major car company publicly disputed the current global-warming-and-CO2 theory?
Another point, even if cars (and other pollutant sources) do not cause global warming, I believe the pollutants are most likely causing other problems we're yet to notice. Hence, the position of cutting pollutants make sense.
 
To answer your question, I don't think there is necessarily a correct global temperature. But if there has been an unusual trend in temperatures and those temps are unfavourable , I think it helps to study it to know the cause....and if the cause is preventable, try to prevent it.
 
I guess we'll never agree about the role of government. All I would say is that any society with too little or too much government doesn't work well.
 
By the way, the taxation I was talking about for autos and fuel is not meant to put money into government's pocket, but to discourage or prevent people from taking actions that would harm the environment (assuming the current global warming theory is true). Ideally, if such taxation were in place, the government wouldn't make much money off it because few people wouldn't comply!

To answer your company question... right now just bad press.
 
sorry the answer was so short... had to go.
 
but its probably the closest to the truth... and it releates back to my profit movite. They all have now figured out how to make money off the green movement.
 
Opposing higher cafe standards is not even an oppsite goal. They want to eat out both bowls. They want to tell the green crowd hey we have green cars (toyota prius, gm with there yellow campaign). and have the big trucks.
 

I have a good friend who is a meteorologist. His opinion about global warming is this. It is true that the average temperature has rising over the past decades by several degrees. It is true that CO2 emissions have increased over the past decades. However, it is not certain that the two are directly related.
  
The problem is that the global climate is such a complex system, that it is hard to predict exactly how it will behave over the long term. Even the most advanced models are just "dumbed down" approximations. Think about it... even with all of our advanced technology, we can still only predict the weather a few days out. Even the scientists on the UN council that won the Nobel Prize aren't agreed on whether global warming is caused by CO2 emissions.
  
My friend said that given all of the uncertainty surrounding global climate models, it seems strange that a non-scientist like Al Gore would claim to know the "truth". To say that we can understand something as chaotic and complex as the global climate at this point in time is an absurd statement.
  
I am not saying that global warming isn't caused by CO2. It very well may be. I am just saying that it is strange how universally it is accepted as fact in the popular media.

humblecoder - i've had a very similar conversation with a metrologist.
 
I dont even think the problem are scientists.. i've rarely read a full study.. so who knows what they really are saying. The problem are the lobbiest/special interest/media/celebrities....
 
Which FEEL theres a problem (I use the word FEEL on purpose here, because rarely do they use thoughts to justify their actions). And they FEEL they should do something. These people get alot of air time, and if you repeat something long enough... people start to belive you.
 
Then when you get close to conivencing a large % of the people you flip the argument. It goes from hey look at this problem to. Hey anyone that disagrees with us is paid off by someone else.. or Our idea is FACT (even if it is not).

VVK,
 
You've obviously read "State of Fear" by Michael Chriton.
 
Blackadder:
 
"So we all agree that autos are not the only causes of pollution and must not be the sole focus of any environmental reforms. "
 
But why is all the attention then on the automotive manufacturers. You don't hear nearly a much of a push to reduce CO2 emmissions from coal burning power plants, from landfills. Also, automobiles are only 30% of MAN MADE CO2 emmission. Natural sources such as wildlife, forest fires, and volcanoes account for greater than 97% of all CO2 emmissions every year. I think it's pretty egotistical of man to blame him(or her)self for global warming based on such an insignificant number.
 
"The "war on poverty" has failed because it is non-existent."
 
The war on poverty failed because you can't enact government regulations that will counteract the ease of getting welfare and medicaid. There is a huge poor class in the united states, over 35 million. And John Edwards tried to use this topic in the 2004 elections. Poor is defined as having income below the povery level.
Welfare cost the US government 434.3 BILLION dollars in 2000. That's 30 times the budget of NASA.
 
And for the previous point, you agree that the war on poverty, drugs, etc have failed. What do you expect to happen with the war on CO2? At least poverty and drugs really are a problem.
 
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm
 
"Globa warming, well, it's easy to see why it's mostly due to human activity."
 
Patently false. There exists no data to support your assertion. The data we have collected shows that water vapor accounts for over 97% of heat retention in the atmosphere. Combined with the fact that humans account for less than 3% of CO2 emmissions, then you're talking about us having less than a tenth of a percent effect on global temperatures (due to vapor retention of thermal energy). So, how significant a difference could we really have if we decresed out CO2 output?
 
Opfreak:
 
"Also to think that the global warming movement thats growing right now is pure and for the good of man is being blind. Its gaining ground because people figured out a way to make money off of it. "
 
You hit that nail right on the head. Do you know why Al Gore made "An Inconvenient Truth"? It wasn't to promote global warming. It wasn't even to make money from movie sales. It was as a two hour long advertisement for his company, which sells the so called "Carbon Credits". What is a carbon credit? You're paying his company to perform activities that will reduce CO2 from the atmosphere. Each credit you buy has a certain amount of CO2 associated with it, and a dollar value.
 
Just like the church did in the middle ages, you can buy your salvation. And for this he gets a Nobel Peace Prize.
 
It's always been like this. As Michael Chriton points out in his book, "State of Fear", the media and government control the population through the use of fear. After the end of the cold war, the government and median have had to come up with new ways to control people. So now you have Global Warming and the World Trade Center, rather than Soviet Red. If you look at global politics, economy, and military, Communist China is as dangerous as the Soviet Union ever has been. But I'm getting off topic now.
 
Blackadder:
 
"Partly right. But you think those against global warming movement are not motivated by money too? GM and other Big Three comanies have been most vocal about CAFE standards and the likes because they don't yet have competitive low economy cars and feel that their profits would be cut a lot if legislation limited truck sales. Heavy industries have always been reluctant to take measures to reduce pollution and CO2 emissions because it would cost money and reduce profits in the short term. "
 
It is hard to disagree with global warming publically for exactly the reasons you have defended it. There's a good guy and a bad guy, and arguing against global warming makes you the bad guy.
 
Heavy industries are quite often reluctant to take measures to reduce pollution because quite often the government mandated requirements go above and beyond what scientific testing has demonstrated is needed.
 
Example 1: Many years ago, the EPA determine the LD50 (lethal does for 50% of lab mice) of Chlorine to be 5 PPM (parts per million). California, with it's pollution problems, promptly came out stating that 4 PPM would be the acceptable level. The EPA responded, saying 3. By the time it was all said and done, the new EPA requirement for airborne chlorine was 0.5 PPM. Ten times more than what the research showed was required for a human to operate at a safe level for 8 hours a day.
 
Example 2: Legislation was enacted to control Bromine, a toxic chemical. This legislation mandated that companies upgrade to comply with the regulation. It has since been determine that this legislation has cost 20 BILLION dollars per life saved. To put this in perspective, the budget of Nasa is only 15 billion dollars.
 
You need to consider the Scientific Method when you argue for or against something like Global Warming. In the Scientific Method, you postulate a hypothesis(a prediction), then perform testing to confirm or deny your hypothesis. If your hypothesis ever fails to produce the predicted results, then what you have is not science.
 
Global warming can make no prediction. A meteorologist can't even tell me what the weather will be like in a week, accurately, much less what it will be like in a century. Yet, many for global warming are saying that they can make predictions.
 
Remeber, it's only been 30 years since we were supposed to be headed for the greatest ice age our planet has ever seen. How did that turn out again?

Heffling, opfreak, and humblecoder, you have all raised great points and compelling arguments. Like I said earlier, I now doubt the current global-warming-CO2 theory.
 
Although opfreak and heffling have already given answers, I still have to ask this. If we "ordinary people" realise how (supposedly) unrealistic or false the current theory is, why have (supposedly wise people) like the EU, most national leaders, the UN, the guys who award the Nobel price, most scientists, etc not done so? Why have they wholeheartedly accepted the current theory? It can't just be because of fear of being seen as a bad guy, can it? And none of these guys stand to make money off the green movement. So are they simply gullible people?
In fact, recently some group (I'm not sure whether it was the UN, EU or just a combination of all scientists in the world) stated that the scientific evidence has now shown beyond reasonable doubt that man-made emissions are the cause of global warming.
All these make me believe that, despite the great points y'all have raised, there must be a great deal of truth to the current theory.
 
I think the overwhelming focus on blaming autos for globa warming has two sources:
- Autos are the most easily visible of pollutant sources to the average person. I doubt more than 3% of people have ever seen a coal power station or a factory that causes heavy pollution.
- Because of the above, politicians focus on autos to score political points. Sad.
 
While the risk of being protrayed as a bad guy is very real, I still think it's possible to educate the public correctly about global warming via adverts, marketing and appearing on TV shows. I'll give an example. There was a time eggs were portrayed as virtually being the cause of high cholesterol. Egg companies succesfully mounted an advertising campaign stating the correct facts, thus successfully defending their business. This morning I saw one such advert from incredibleegg.com. I have not seen such from any car company! If egg companies can succeed at this, so can car companies. So either they accept the current theory or have found a way of making money off it. One could say that Toyota, GM (with the upcoming Volt) and Honda have found ways to make money off the green movement. But what about all the other car manufacturers?
 
I think global warming has made predictions and has at least offered some proof of them. Look at the melting ice on the poles of Earth. The predictions of flooding and increasingly poor weather patterns. These predictions, of course, do not necessarily answer the questions about what is really causing the global warming.
 
I also think criticism of Al Gore that he's only in it to make money is unfair and untrue. It appears he's been interested in this issue for a long time. He claims he has since college. They showed this video clip on TV where Bush Snr. called him a craxzy person in '92 for his environmentalist views. Back then Gore wasn't making money off the issue! So while Gore's now making money (and why not?), I think it's unfair and untrue to say he's doing what he's doing for attention and money only.
 
So, to summarise, while you've all raised compelling points that have created doubts in the current theory, I have reason to believe that the current theory is at least still partially valid.

The war on poverty has failed, but all that says is that a different strategy is needed. At the end of the day, welfare is a short-term solution. The long-term solution is to improve the quality of live in poor areas so they can get good opportunities. I don't pretend to know how to do this.....but then that's why I'm not in politics.....
 
Opfreak, you mentioned how bad some public schools are and I agree. That just shows that more tax dollars are needed. Public schools in middle-class and rich areas succeed primarily because they supplement government funding with property taxes and the likes. Poor areas don't have this luxury. If government were to give adequate or good funding to all public schools, those in poor neighbourhoods wouldn't be as bad. Whether the solution for this is more taxes or more efficient use of current taxes is another issue........ Overall, there is no doubt whatsoever that the country would be worse off without public schools.

Blackadder: temprature might be rising.. theres certainly some evidence of that. i'd even excpet the higher co2 levels in the atmoshpere as being a sign that tempratures have risen. (once again. the rise in temprature cause the rise in co2).
 
to argue against it right now is hard. Just look at how much heffling and to some extent I worte. The argument against man-made global warming requires more thought then an argument that humans are causing it.
 
Put it simply.
 
Whats easier to make into a commerical that the public will 'understand'.
 
1) as temprature rises CO2 rises, so humans are not causing tempratures to rise.
 
2) a stupid polar bear that got lost and is sitting on a floating piece of ice?
 
---
 
And I would argue right now that companies are rulled by fear... Like the tobbaco companies who lost billions and smokers who are losing rights faster then lives. Companies are now wising up that its better to work with the system then against it.
 
Look at bp commericals, with all their happy we care about the enviorment even though we are one of the biggest oil manufactures in the world. (Talk about being FAKE).

"I think global warming has made predictions and has at least offered some proof of them. Look at the melting ice on the poles of Earth. The predictions of flooding and increasingly poor weather patterns. These predictions, of course, do not necessarily answer the questions about what is really causing the global warming. "
 
Actually, if you look into the global warming issue and scientific papers published, you'll find predictions ranging the entire run. You have everything from global warming causing an increase in the polar ice caps to global warming flooding our coasts in the next 20 years.
 
If you guess enough random things, you're bound to be correct at least some of the time.
 
Additionally, while there is evidence that the edges of the polar ice caps are decreasing in size, the mass of the interior of both the north and south poles appears to be increasing from year to year.
 
"If we "ordinary people" realise how (supposedly) unrealistic or false the current theory is, why have (supposedly wise people) like the EU, most national leaders, the UN, the guys who award the Nobel price, most scientists, etc not done so? "
 
Are cigarettes bad for you? Of course they are. Tobacco smoking is well documented as being one of the leading causes of death, a huge burden on our medical industry, etc etc. And yet, people still smoke, and it's one of the largest selling commodities in the world.
 
"So, to summarise, while you've all raised compelling points that have created doubts in the current theory, I have reason to believe that the current theory is at least still partially valid."
 
Would you agree with me that Global Warming must be based in science? Assuming that you do, please do a little research on the scientific method and apply it to Global Warming.

LOL, LOL, LOL Opfreak!
"a stupid polar bear that got lost and is sitting on a floating piece of ice?" would be far easier for the public to "understand".
 
I also think you have a good point about companies realising that it's better to work with the system. And, yeah, BP's commercials are ridiculous.....so ridiculous they're actually funny!
 
Heffling, I definitely agree that global warming must be based on science.
 
Well, guys, I'm going to start reading more about the topic! Thanks. :)

The link that the media has portrayed between global warming and CO2 is a correlation. Which means nothing. Correlations merely indicate a trend, it is causation that actually establishes a link of why something happens (think about it, if you had an area where there were a lot of sick people, it would make sense that there would be more doctors in that area. Does that mean doctors cause illness? This is all the CO2 - global warming link is).
 
Now, as for why companies won't speak out and advertise, they are basically afraid of the bad PR they will get from some bobble head CNN calling them a bigot. It's not worth it yet for companies like GM or Honda to go actively stand out against the beliefs that are being tossed about in the mainstream media.
 
As such, if people really think global warming is a serious issue, we will see it influence their buying patterns and behavior. In other words, they will put more of an emphasis on emissions. How many people do you know who go shopping by emissions? Yes, fuel economy is important, but that is an economic decision, not an environmental one.
 
People get all hyped up about global warming because they hear about on the news, see it in the papers, and listen to it on the radio. It's no different than the propaganda Hitler used to rise to power in Germany. However, how many people actually take to heart what Al Gore says? Thankfully, relatively few people.

jr1m90, I've learnt a lot from you, opfreak, heffling and humblecoder. But one question remains: how were fans of global theory able to get the EU, UN and virtually all the world's leaders to accept their view?

According to Wikipedia,
 
" The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last 100 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. About two dozen scientists disagree with the consensus. Almost all of these dissenting scientists work in fields different from climate science and do not publish their ideas in the peer reviewed journals. "
 
This is what I've been talking about. I guess the issue is whether or not global warming is caused by man-made activities. Man-made activities could or could be the cause.
 
After some thought, I have to side with the "mainstream" global warming theory. The main thing for me is that the IPCC accepts the mainstream theory: that man-made activities cause global warming. I just do not see how the IPCC could be motivated by money, be ignorant or be gullible. They could be influenced by politics and/or business, but these forces tend to be against man-made global warming. Hence, I'm assuming they've considered all the possibilities and drawn the conclusion in a scientific manner.

The Sad fact is. The UN, and EU have strong anti-american feelings. They dont like our power, etc.
 
If global warming is such a problem then why do these countries that adopt CO2 treaties almost always miss their targets?
 
And if CO2 is so bad how come most treaties like Kyto dont apply to countries like China and India?
 
The UN is a very polictical group... one that was original designed to prevent wars... esspically large global ones. It was an evolution of the failed league of nations..
 
How or why is grew into what it is today.. is beyond me. We are giving up more power to a none elected group whos interests are general the oppisite of the unitied states.
 
And the question still stands... Is global warming 'Bad'? and what is the 'right' temprature?
 
Final alot of science tends towards wrongness. And for any scientists to claim that they are 100% correct in any Theory should automaticaly cause them to be fired.
 
To disprove anything required one example.
 
I.E. All birds are white... Me finding just one non-white bird should be enough to dismiss that theory.
 
heres a great read a bit dated, but still good
 
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
 
look up more of his work,

Here's something to understand about global warming and being for or against it. If you listen to those who are for global warming, they make a strong arguement that they are for it on the basis of damaging or destroying the planets ecology.
 
If you are like me, and do not accept the global warming theory, then by the association of topics, you end up being accused of being against saving our planet's ecology.
 
It makes those who oppose the theory into villians.
 
Wikipedia, is by it's very definition, a suspect resource. However, looking at your wikipedia entry, you will see that there is not agreement as to the actual source of global warming (man made, feedbacks, solar variations, natural activity, volcanic activity).
 
Additionally, there exists no consensus of predicted effects from global warming. To quote the wiki: "Though it is difficult to connect specific weather events to global warming, an increase in global temperatures may in turn cause other changes, including glacial retreat and worldwide sea level rise. Changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation may result in flooding and drought. There may also be changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events."
 
Now, for example, let's say that I told you tommorrow that you should base your stock investments on my advice, because I can predict the future. So, you ask me how I can predict the future and I tell you "I am certain that tommorrow the stock prices will either go up or down". I really haven't told you anything.
 
And yet, it is accepted when Global Warming theorists make this kind of claim. Hey, next year there will be "changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events". Good job there, Heffling.
 
Accepting Global Warming on the basis of the IPCC accepting it is a logical fallicy called an "Appeal to Authority". If you want to accept Global Warming on the SAME basis that the IPCC does, that's fine. But just accepting it because someone else does, to me, isn't good practice.
 
The EU, UN, and other world leaders state that they accept Global Warming on the basis of my reasoning above. That is, if you're against GW, then you're against Mother Earth. Since most of the 1st world countries are republic in nature (The US is a republic, not a democracy), then your position is dependant on winning a popularity contest. So, going against global warming for these people would be the same as shooting themselves in the foot.
 
Keep in mind, in the 70's we were headed towards the greatest ice age that Earth has ever seen. In the 80's, CFCs and Freon were destroying our Ozone layer.
 
Now we have global warming instead of the ice age, and despite the fact that China and India are putting out more CFCs and Freon than the US and Europe ever have, the ozone layer is "healing" itself.
 
If any meaningful global policy is to be enacted to control environmental modifiers, then it needs to be applied to all countries. North America and Europe only represent 20ish percent of the world population. China alone has more people than that. So, if we're going to be part of global organizations, then let's be global about it.

Yeah, guys, I'll be reading more and updating you on my progress.