Scientists Agree Global Warming is Real

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/ eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

Are you going to tell me that there's not a significant difference between observation that you or I do and the work that goes into creating voluminous studies that nobody reads?

What happened was someone came over and said "jeez sully, your house is a f'n mess" to which an entrepreneurial inventor replied "ah, I have a way to help you pick up all this grime and gunk" offering to sell you a vaccuum.

Philosophically you agreed that it was in your best interest and especially in that of your guests that you shared your home with to clean up your place so you did.

Then decades later the government gave some numbnuts a 5 million dollar grant to make a study to determine what we already know: dirt is bad, vaccuuming is good.

damn, mooni you jumped in before I could finish my thought :)

might i suggest vaccuuming ;)

suck it up

Original Post by ignayshus:

Are you going to tell me that there's not a significant difference between observation that you or I do and the work that goes into creating voluminous studies that nobody reads?

What happened was someone came over and said "jeez sully, your house is a f'n mess" to which an entrepreneurial inventor replied "ah, I have a way to help you pick up all this grime and gunk" offering to sell you a vaccuum.

Philosophically you agreed that it was in your best interest and especially in that of your guests that you shared your home with to clean up your place so you did.

Then decades later the government gave some numbnuts a 5 million dollar grant to make a study to determine what we already know: dirt is bad, vaccuuming is good.

 I had a big long responce typed out, but then I realized we're just running in circles.  The point was that everything that we 'know' whether we know that car exhaust is bad for us, or that polluting groundwater is bad, we know these things because we have collected data.  Collecting data doesn't mean the government spending millions of dollars, it can be simple observations, but it's data collection none the less.

Let's think about what would happen reguarding global warming if we used your "You use the data to determine how to fix/improve X once the conclusion is drawn that X needs to be fixed/improved."

Liberal Hippie Tree Hugger: "We should protect the earth because it's important!"

Evil Conservative CEO Polluter: "I agree it's important to protect the earth"

LHTH: "It would be bad for the earth if the climate changed"

ECCP: "Right there with you"

LHTH: "The climate is changing and therefor needs a fix"

ECCP: "I don't believe you that the climate is changing, and therefor nothing needs to be fixed"

LHTH: "Sure it is, just look at all this climate data showing a warming trend"

ECCP: "Hey, don't you know the rules? You can only use data to figure out how to fix a problem, not to determine whether or not a problem exists!  I'm going to continue to opperate under the assumption that there is no problem because it would hurt me financially and you can't convince me there is a problem without using data and you aren't allowed to use data yet, so the world isn't getting warmer"

Original Post by ignayshus:

Original Post by dnrothx:

I don't think either argument would get us anywhere.  A philosophical argument would just be academic and...amusing. :D

To be fair, you think a lot of things ;)

...which is better than not thinking at all.

You're not trying to convince the vested interests sully, they are the extreme minority.

You're trying to convince everyone else whose only dog in the hunt is their vote.

You can win their vote, not the vested interest.

edit: I'm suprised this was lost on you.

edit: and by "vote" I mean actual vote and the capacity to "vote" by spending their money elsewhere.

oh & thanks guys for not correcting me. i meant moot not mute. do y'all have ur nice hats on today or somethin? do brain farts contribute to global warming?

Original Post by dnrothx:

Original Post by ignayshus:

Original Post by dnrothx:

I don't think either argument would get us anywhere.  A philosophical argument would just be academic and...amusing. :D

To be fair, you think a lot of things ;)

...which is better than not thinking at all.

Meditation is very relaxing and has always produced a positive effect on me.

Original Post by ignayshus:

You're not trying to convince the vested interests sully, they are the extreme minority.

You're trying to convince everyone else whose only dog in the hunt is their vote.

You can win their vote, not the vested interest.

edit: I'm suprised this was lost on you.

edit: and by "vote" I mean actual vote and the capacity to "vote" by spending their money elsewhere.

 But the vested interests, while they are the extreme minority, are still really loud.  Imagine the following scenario.

LHTH: "hello sir, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is a phenomenon known as 'global warming' which is currently doing very bad things to our environment"

John Q. Public: "Wow, I was unaware, thanks, what can I do about it?"

LHTH: "I'm glad you asked, you can start by purchasing less of products X, Y an Z"

**ECCP runs into room**

ECCP: "Not so fast! Don't listen to that crazy hippy! There is no such thing as global warming, he only says so because he hates all the fine workers who make X, Y and Z and wants their children to starve"

JQP: "huh, now I don't know who to believe"

LHTH: "You should believe me, I have proof, look at all this climate da..."

ECCP: "There you go again, trying to use data to demonstrate that there is a problem, you know the rules state that you can only use data to figure out how to solve the problem."

JQP: "Well, without data, how am I suposed to figure out if there is a problem or not"

ECCP: "Just take my word for it, now go back to buying lots of X, Y and Z"

Original Post by octo-luv:

oh & thanks guys for not correcting me. i meant moot not mute. do y'all have ur nice hats on today or somethin? do brain farts contribute to global warming?

we haven't collected enough data to know the answer to that

;D

Original Post by melkor:

 Surprisingly enough, I agree with that. I miss the kind of conservatives who included actual conservation in their politics, instead of conservation of the privilege of the rich over the rule of law.

 Nixon established the EPA and the Clean Air act. And do you know who established the national park system?

 I miss the real conservatives.

 Theodore Roosevelt.  The national park system is an awesome legacy.

And if brain farts contribute to global warming, we're in serious trouble here.

Rambling in search of common ground...

I have wondered over the last decade or so why Detroit can't bring themselves to produce a decent fuel efficient vehicle.

Ford has a diesel version of the Focus in Europe that gets 60+ mpg, but we'll never see it here because of govt. regulations and lack of corporate profits.

Is anyone else impressed with the concept of a Tahoe/Suburban hybrid that gets a whopping 22 mpg hwy?

The Prius and Insight are good starts, but all the added weight and complexity of a hybrid system to gain only a few MPG?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you charge up a hybrid's batteries before driving it will require alot less input from the gas powered engine, why all the foot dragging about producing plug-in hybrids? All that requires is basically installing a battery charger.

With all the money the govt. is throwing around, why couldn't they earmark an easy billion or so for the automakers to buy themselves some decent Lithium batteries and get a jump on the hybrid competition?

Well, that's one of many issues to cover  

Original Post by pgeorgian:

Original Post by moonikins:

Original Post by dnrothx:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

i was going to say that letting your car idle for a long time is bad for your engine and may cost you more $$$ in repairs later on, but i see that pg has already covered that

 Not letting your car warm up tends to do it damage as well.

 

 What you're supposed to do is to let your car idle as little as possible before driving. Then drive gently and slowly for the first 5-10 minutes. When you idle your car, the cold oil is not really circulating and it's much harder on your engine.

and today's smaller engines don't get hot enough at an idle to burn the fuel completely, so you get lots of residue if you idle it cold.

start and drive.  i don't even start mine before scraping the windshield.

edit: and use a block heater.

 Follow up on this one.

The block heater is probobly a pretty good idea, even for temps well above freezing. A cars emission controls don't begin to work fully until the engine is up to operating temperature. So for the first 5-10 minutes you're putting as much garbage into the air as your father's Oldsmobile. Warming the engine up for 10-15 minutes with a block heater before starting would have a huge effect on emissions.

Windshield scraping is still optional.

Original Post by jeffmidguard:

Original Post by melkor:

 Surprisingly enough, I agree with that. I miss the kind of conservatives who included actual conservation in their politics, instead of conservation of the privilege of the rich over the rule of law.

 Nixon established the EPA and the Clean Air act. And do you know who established the national park system?

 I miss the real conservatives.

 Theodore Roosevelt.  The national park system is an awesome legacy.

hmm well there are some who think that we dont even really know how to take care of nature & when we try to, we bung things up that we didn't even fathom. however i cant say much about it, as ive never really studied or read too much on that particular subject.

And if brain farts contribute to global warming, we're in serious trouble here. yes some brain farts are more toxic than others.

The temperature fluctuations in the last several decades are not out of the normal range if you consider geologic time -- millions and millions of years.

But we know a few things:

1) temperature is increasing VERY fast. Faster than we know has happened before. These changes have been in 100 years, not 1 million.

2) CO2 and other greenhouse gases have the potential to cause global warming in the atmosphere.

3) we have been realeasing a lot more CO2 at the same time that we have seen the superfast global temperature increases.

4) the temperature increases have far surpassed expectations based on natural causes alone.

5) even if we stop releasing greenhouses gases now, the earth will still continue to warm from all of the stuff currently out there. But it will warm much more if we do nothing, and the differences in consequences of that warming between those two alternatives is expected to be very dramatic.

6) if we decide that we don't know enough and wait until "the jury is in," then we will have to deal with the more dire consequences.

7) even if we think we are not to blame for global warming in general, we are certainly contributing to the speed by pumping out greenhouse gases, and climate change is not just going to decrease biodiversity and kill polar bears, it is going to make our lives much more difficult.  If you have kids and grandkids, this should matter to you.

Another thing I just don't get is why some folks think that anyone who brings up environmental issues like climate change is some sort of fraud. Look at the sides of the issue -- what does each have to gain from their position? The oil companies -- clear economic benefits. The environmentalists? What exactly do we have to gain? We are ALL going to pay for climate change. We will pay more the longer we wait to address it.