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?
6771 messages, Last post on Nov 22, 2009 at 8:40 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 19, 2008 3:04 pm) In fact after seeing heating oil at $4.50 earlier this year, the powerlines down for over a week in some areas here due to the Ice storm (might get hit again Sun. as high winds and snow bring down damaged trees), that if the EarF doesn't warm in the next few decades, and we don't get this miracle energy source, there will be a migration from the northern sections of this country and Canada. The fact is that modern man is too populous, too spoiled, and too reliant on fossil fuels in these climates, to live in these areas if fossil fuels become scarce and/or expensive. You see it in the fact that many, many people move South once they retire and aren't tied to their job. The fact is that it is only cheap, plentiful fossil fuels that are keeping the areas north of the Mason Dixon line as populated as they are. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 19, 2008 11:15 am) Maybe we'll also save many billions, keeping our costs lower and living standards higher. You do understand that to sequester CO2 underground is going to make power generation inefficient? For example you will need the equivalent of 5 power plants instead of 4, and the commensurate fuel consumption of 5 instead of 4 if we require underground CO2 sequestering. It will take huge amounts of energy to compress a gas like CO2 into a liquid and then pump that into shafts deep in the ground. And if you have to locate those power plants in areas where the rock is suited for CO2 storage, you may have to locate those power plants far from the users, thus increasing line-losses. Sequestering CO2 is far from free in either costs or extra fuel used!! ... and then Japan and Europe will develop all the "clean tech" that we will desperately need in a decade or two, and they will clean our clocks economically by selling it to us. Let Japan and Europe spend billions on the R&D. The Chinese will buy some tech, or steal it, and produce the units much cheaper than Japan or Europe could produce it. If we spent the money on the R&D, we'd outsource the manufacture to the Chinese anyway. Same result, we save the $$. 
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 19, 2008 4:59 pm) It's pretty easy to claim. Weather watch: a record year of extreme events 2008 Record Warm Year "Climate change doesn't mean the end of cold weather. It means more extreme weather patterns and higher global average temperatures (temperatures from all locales taken over the course of an entire year and averaged will be higher than in the past)." SFGate Your turn - where does it say that the only effects of global warming are just extremes in hot temps or drought or hurricanes?
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 19, 2008 7:48 pm)  So global warming doesn't mean weather, but on the other hand it means weather. I'd love to play the 3 card/cup monte with you.
|
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Dec 19, 2008 8:06 pm) Asking for such a thing would simply be a delay tactic. I'd love a game of Monte with you but I've tested every hypothesis and I'm absolutely sure you don't exist. 
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 19, 2008 7:48 pm) That is the reason they changed the name of the cult from Global Warming to Climate Change. So they could blame every eventuality on George Bush. Katrina was his fault because he did not sign Kyoto. Big AL never mentions the fact than NONE of the signors have met the goals set out in the treaty. So now it is a new treaty. I think honest scientific study is great. The fact is when there is a consensus that has to be proven, honest scientific study goes out the window. Can you name ONE scientist that questions MM/GW that is on the payroll of any entity that believes MM/GW is a done deal? How many REAL scientists do you hear, that say Man Made Climate Change is a done deal. All I see are reports massaged by the UN, media and politicians that have an agenda.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 19, 2008 8:44 pm) Scientific reports are massaged, fortunately. I'd never be able to understand one if it wasn't watered down for me. But if you are a scientist, you can get your hands on the abstracts, data and full studies and review it all and run your own models. That's what it's all about isn't it? Can you name ONE scientist that questions MM/GW that is on the payroll of any entity that believes MM/GW is a done deal? Does NASA fit your MMGW criteria? ("A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.") NASA This prof is paid by the UofA I guess, but surely he gets grant money from NASA: "For nearly 30 years, Professor (John) Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide." anatreptic.com Now, if you want to really stump me, ask me to find someone employed at, say, the Heritage Foundation who believes in MMGW.  |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 19, 2008 2:11 pm) There are many facts and little speculation at this point. The evidence for GW is piling up pretty fast. I doubt there are any credible, accredited scientists that will flatly and completely deny man's contribution to GW. (not weathermen, not Ben Stein, but scientists). Reason? They'd have a hard time arguing that on evidence. They could only argue on absence of evidence, which is weak and does not support a TOTAL type of denial of anything. What will take a bit more time is determining the EXTENT of man's contribution and whether it is truly significant.....which is to say, if it's not significant, why stop it? And if it is, why continue it? I will certainly agree, though, that trying to force Detroit to make EVs is not going to help them or us very much, since EVs are actually propelled by coal.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 19, 2008 10:53 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 19, 2008 8:11 pm) So here is one little real clue. The confluence of environmental, union, and regulatory factors, etc. etc., babble has brought the big three to literally (if they are correct) to the death bed, and on life support. The whole time the UAS gravy train aka love boat (SUV's/pick up trucks to stay on topic) has literally been excoriated/vilified. The demos have been trying to get rid of North American manufacturing for literally generations. Now that they are the CLOSEST to the goal of eliminating this "scourge of WORLD WIDE civilization as we know it, by shutting OFF life support; now suddenly it is CODE CODE CODE to save the entire industry !? To say the system is bi polar might be an extreme understatement.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
