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?
6945 messages, Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 9:36 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 22, 2008 6:31 am) Your quote really puts the cap on the thought the GW/GCC marketing drives has ALWAYS been on increasing the price/cost of energy ALL ALONG !!! The hope has been to use LESS and increase percentages, prices AND TAXATION !!?? They are just content using the so called "pendulum and ratchet" methods. They have had the traditional boogie men: MONSTER/S OIL !!!! AH !!!!! monsters !!! Anybody who mentions that governments/states/nations make MORE money than the MONSTERS somehow some way do not get the time of day. The real tragedy goes unreported unheralded. Now there is and has ALWAYS been a place for taxation. But money spent in the free market system locally has at the LEAST an 8-1 multiplier effect; while taxation is a 1 dollar taxation= 2 dollars you have to earn proposition. So taxation deployment has to (should, but NOT) be ever so judiciously applied and hopefully for obvious reasons. What has actually happened if this economic scenario is any example is less use and record LOW PRICES. When taxation is the same, low prices actually almost exponentially increase TAXES. For those that have a hard time visualizing this: CA for example has an excise taxation of .18 cents each: RUG to PUG/D2. (this is only ONE level of taxation at the pumps) Do the math at 4 dollars per gal vs 1.60 per gal. So for example there is talk in the CA legislature of upping the per gal fees/taxation or whatever they wish to call it to skirt the 2/3rds majority vote on taxation to $1.00 per gals. The percentage rise will be EXPONENTIAL while a $1.00 RISE will seem "reasonable" under so called "extreme" conditions !!! |
|
|
Not all scientist get equal time in the media. We suspect you have been living your life unaware of the articles by Loehle and McCulloch. The reason is obvious – they found evidence that temperature variations over the past 2,000 years indicate that the earth’s average temperature bounces around naturally to a larger degree than other paleo-reconstructions indicate, and further, that temperatures about 1,000 years ago were not that dissimilar to today’s temperatures. This suggests that the earth’s ecosystems are more resilient (and adaptive) than some pessimists give them credit for—not a favorite topic in the mainstream press. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temper- ature-record/
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 22, 2008 7:03 am) |
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Dec 22, 2008 7:09 am) Fact is, no one can know the complete, full, true impact of man's activities on the global climate. Thus we have the "debate" part. |
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Dec 22, 2008 7:09 am) As 2008 nears an end, there are a lot of folks waiting to see where the final number is going to come in for this year’s global average temperature. It’s likely that the average temperature for 2008 will fall below the value for 2007 and quite possibly be the coldest year of the (official) 21st century. 2008 will add another to the growing recent string of years during which time global average temperatures have not risen. Does this mean that pressure of “global warming” fuelled by increasing greenhouse gas emissions from human activity has abated? The answer is a qualified “no”—it seems that natural variations have been flexing their muscles and offsetting anthropogenic warming. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/17/recent-temperature-trends- -in-context/#more-355 |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Dec 22, 2008 7:21 am) It looks like this year your "Hockey Stick" GW chart will get a workout. Lots of frozen places to play hockey. You can discount solid evidence all you like. That is what debate is all about. I am just a voice for reality. It is only the global warming fanatics that are not interested in facts. The rest of US want to see data backed up by more data. Even then the issue is so large that it will be difficult to make any kind of judgment that is without room for debate. So in response. No one can truly know how little man contributes to the changes in Global Climate. I personally would be surprised if it is more than 5%. Which means all the hand wringing and wasted resources will have less than a negligible affect on the Arctic ice melting. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Dec 22, 2008 7:21 am) |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 22, 2008 7:33 am) Just following your lead. You refuse to even admit that historical temperature records are correct !!! How's that for "discounting solid evidence?"
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Dec 22, 2008 7:54 am)  We all may as well take a 4 week breather - assuming Obama's science appointments are all confirmed, there's going to be a lot of fresh arguments on the table.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 22, 2008 7:59 am) My problem is with those that think we can change the Global temperatures significantly. I also detest the alarmist that would have me drive a Yugo so they can live in an 11,000 square foot mansion and use 10 times as much electricity as I do. Or have a 100 foot long house boat with many times the carbon impact as my modest home. It is not the Larsb's of the country I have a problem with. It is the "Do as I say, Not as I DO" GW alarmists from NYC, Washington DC and Hollywood, I have an issue with. |
|
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
