Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
6840 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 2:33 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Oct 17, 2008 6:17 pm) You are right. I clumped you all together as I would lawyers and politicians. That was not entirely fair. I do know scientists that studied everything from tundra grass, bears, bowhead whale migrations to ice core samples. And as a whole they were very serious about their field of study. I have no doubt they presented their superiors with accurate data to the best of their ability. The problem and I have discussed it with the scientists in the field is what happens to that data you sent to town? One marine biologist that was tracking whales told me she had little say in what actually happens with the data. This was in the early 1980s. She was making $25k per year with a PHD in Marine Biology. Her boss that did nothing but sit in San Diego submitting the grants and passing on the data made $85k per year. She could have gone to work at Sea World for triple what she got from the outfit she worked for. She loved studying whales in the Arctic. That said, when I bad mouth scientists it is aimed at the ones that are in the middle doing whatever they are told to do by the entity paying the bills. I know they are not above lying to preserve their jobs. So if you are one of the dedicated scientists out in the field or doing research without a preconditioned conclusion. I apologize and assume you are part of the majority of good scientists. My take on MTBE. Bad science used by greedy lobbyist, paying off corrupt politicians. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Oct 18, 2008 8:35 am) Nope, If I was way touchy I WOULD WRITE WITH THE CAP LOCKS ON and use a lot of !!!!!!!!! This is only a blog after all.  My point about the medications was an analogy. Other examples would be; if you did not trust airline pilots, would you want to fly or if you did not trust engineers, would you want to travel in an elevator or cross a bridge? The MTBE issue was a good example of how the Air Quality folks at EPA pushed a bit to hard on the oxygenates without understanding the water quality ramifications. Another example of that is solid waste folks wanting to incinerate trash when it was looking like we would run out of landfills. The next thing you know we have an air pollution issue because of mercury in the trash (old thermostats and thermometers with mercury in them). More on topic: Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was "The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions." http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37590/title/Cooling_climate_%E2%80%98- consensus%E2%80%99_of_1970s_never_was
|
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Oct 19, 2008 2:00 pm) The first part of your sentence is true, the second part is not. They knew fully. They just neg dec'ed it. . All you need do is look at the public record on the subject. ..."More on topic: Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was"... Just as there are no warming consensus (operatively) in 2000's. |
|
|
often goes almost totally unnoticed!! Isn't it interesting that the environmental activist concept that boosting the price of a barrel of oil brings down use? Indeed doing what they advocate has not only increased the prices but actually increased year over year growth (i.e.,104% to 106 %) What has cut the percentage of growth (rather dramatically I might observe) year over year (i.e., 104 to 102%) has actually been a DECREASE (DIRECT opposite if one continues to overlook the blantantly obvious) in the price of a barrel of oil (147 per barrel to current levels 74/75). OPEC have declared EMERGENCY meetings for they fear it (not cutting production aka price of a barrel of oil) will start the price of a barrel of oil to further SLIDE ( to 50/55!!!!????) 
|
|
|
First is an article. This made me chuckle. Seems the British government paid for a study of the carbon footprints of disposable and regular cloth diapers. (that's almost funny enough all by itself) The study found that regular cloth diapers had a larger carbon footprint than disposables. Whoops! Not exactly what they wanted to hear. So, now government officials have instructed civil servants to not talk about the study and take a "defensive" stance on the study's findings. What a hoot. Blow to image of ‘green’ reusable nappy Second is a blog entry. Mentions many of the arguments that refute anthropogenic GW and much of the polemic surrounding the issue. The interesting point is an assertion that in the very recent, average global temp has actually gone down giving up most of the recent warming, so we may be in for an extended cooling period. The comments that follow the entry are fun as well. Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof Enjoy!
|
|
|
Replying to: mattandi (Oct 21, 2008 5:34 am) |
|
|
Replying to: mattandi (Oct 21, 2008 5:34 am) It's like coffee cups - things aren't always as they seem. Ceramic mugs take more energy and resources to make and clean than disposable Styrofoam, at least per one older study. But drinking coffee isn't green anyway. Nothing is as simple as it seems on the surface.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Oct 21, 2008 5:57 am) On a lighter note..............today saw the commissioning of Britains latest off-shore wind turbine farm, (just off my local coastline). This now makes Britain the largest generator of electricity from offshore wind turbines. We just overtook Denmark. Just when I thought we were doing something right, they announced that the minister responsible would be going to see the new installation by helicopter. It's only a short trip by boat for heaven's sake. Why burn all that kerosine ? Maybe the fact that we don't really have a Royal Navy or a fishing fleet, any more, might explain it. Still, yippee for the turbines. |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Oct 21, 2008 5:57 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: mattandi (Oct 21, 2008 6:35 am) Last summer friends were here and we all went to the grocery and I forgot my cloth bags (no doubt loaded with pesticide and herbicide residue, but that's another story....). Anyway, I put my groceries in plastic and got chastised for not using paper bags. I'm like, dude, you and your wife own four cars and you want to lecture me about plastic/paper? (I'm not convinced that paper is better anyway). |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
