OK, since nobody has said it, I will. I'm politically incorrect enough..... IF the polar ice melts and IF California and New York get covered in water and IF we get a new coastline, what's the great loss? I'm looking at this in a very positive light. My property just became oceanfront property and went waaaay up in value. Plus, if we gotta "thin the heard" so to speak, what better place to start than with the environmental whacko's in CA. And prices in NY are getting quite high. I'd like to see my property go as high. But then somebody may wish I'd be the next to go into the ocean. Oh well. Oh, wait!!! Another disaster, all that new trash that just went in the oceans....oh what a disaster.




For those that didn't get it, that was a joke.

The thing of it is, assuming Global warming is real, and it is real, at least in the extreme short term, what of it. NO ONE knows what that portends, other than there will be climatalogical changes. Some will be good, others not good. The net effect is totally unknown.
Perhaps there will be longer growing seasons allowing double crops of staple food stuffs. Perhaps more food will mean larger families leading to future famine when the cycle reverses. Maybe Polar bears will head South and develop a taste for house pets and school children in NY State, much to the chagrin of Green Peace. Then again maybe they won't.
A valid argument could be made that the presant warming is as natural as any other phenomenom, even if Man assisted. We are part of the Eco System after all. The argument could even be made that it's all pre-ordained and is part of a grand scheme we could NEVER comprehend.
Like the species of the World have had to do since life began we will adapt or die.
The one thing I do beleive is that anyone who says they KNOW what is going to happen needs to take a deep breath. To throw the Worlds economic balance, as crappy as it is, into disarray on unknown theorys is the height of stupidity.
Todays WSJ has an interesting article on just how, barring some yet unknown miracle energy source, the goal of drastic CO2 reduction by 2050 is unrealistic to the point of absurdity............Bob

It's not an "unknown theory". The results have been highly predictable thus far, and disparate analyses have been consistent in results and accuracy for 3 decades now. The "net effects" are chaotic first, haphazard at best, and lineal/reliable last (making for inconsistent climatological changes and unpredictable growth seasons over time and space--essentially dooming agriculture eventually). The changes (a.k.a. "warming") that we've seen so far is more radical than anything that's occurred in any period over geologic time (including the advance/recession of the ice ages) since the extinction fo the dinosaurs.

Oh, and the white coat of polar bears make them utterly helpless as a predator in New York.

Other than that you've nailed it!

Seriously, when you have thousands of degreed professionals as concerned as they are, do you really expect to know better than them, or expect a few unqualified mavericks to negate the concern ad hoc? Do you tell your dentist that you don't have any cavities and your doctor that those chest pains are just normal as well? How about a few thousand doctors?

Lets talk about the accuracy 3 decades ago of the "degreed professional's" prediction of "The coming ice age".



No consideration given to evolutionary adaptation and bioengineering?



Flash.....Flora just LOVES warm and grows like stink. That's why you don't see jungles in the North and barren tundra at the Equator



No, The polar bear's coloration will evolve into a pattern that mimics shopping malls, upscale wine shoppes, and Ivy League campuses thus wreacking havoc on whole new generations of budding experts predicting his demise.



You've been throwing these phrases about for quite a few posts. Perhaps a few footnotes are in order.



Nope, I sure don't try to tell either one how to do their job. But I also gotta tell you they're wrong about the same number of times they are correct. If you blindly listen to your "degreed" health care "professional" and do whatever he tells you without tempering it with common sense you won't have to worry about the sky falling because you won't be around much longer............Bob

Bob, you simply need to read more and stop listening to Fox News. Here's one article that'll at least address the "predicted ice ice" urban legend you keep falling back on. As to how evolution works (and how fast given generational time spans), whether simple added warmth is the expected result and whether (even if that were true) it would aid plant growth, the limitations of bioengineering relative to expected climate changes and extremes, who the evil professors are who concocted the facts for you (like the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and NOAA), etc. etc. etc., we can save that for later.

The fact of the matter remains that whether you accept reality or not, it doesn't matter. The rest of the world already has. They're operating within the framework of the facts as they are, and we'll have to as well no matter.

Therefore what's going to happen to you and your cars is going to be predicated on an ever more scarce and more expensive fuel situation and an overall societal emphasis on massive conservation of that fuel for environmental, economic, and supply reasons.

Be ready.

Why do you assume I listen to (watch) Fox News? Should I assume you wear Birkenstock sandals, sip double double mocha lattes, and read the NY Times? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Fact of the matter is I read 3 newspapers a day, watch two different news channels, and read quite a bit, including tittilating fiction.
But all that is besides the point. I don't even disagree that the Earth is warming and fossil fuels are being depleted. That's an observable fact.
What I disagree with is the near hysteria and INSISTANCE by "degreed professionals" that they KNOW what is happening, WHY it is happening, and what WILL happen in the future if we don't do what they say. When in fact they KNOW none of the above but are merely postulating theories which may or may not prove to be true.
In almost every field of science the prevailing "truth de jur" has subsequently been proven false only to be replaced by a new "truth" which was itself later proved incorrect.
Keep in mind that there are fortunes to be made and careers to be advanced by jumping aboard this particular band wagon. Books will be written, newspapers sold, documentaries made, elections won, research grants awarded, TV specials broadcast, on and on ad nauseum all on the back of hysteria.
And so it goes.
So while you are sitting in your local Starbucks, sipping a caramel cinnamon frappe grande, watch out for a Polar bear wearing Birkenstocks and coloration mimicing a barista. He'll eat more than your lunch.........Bob

It seems that either when talking about global warming, or whether or not there IS a recession, we should just give up because 'some' people seem to be smarter and know better than we do about what is good for us.

Dave, the problem that you and others that view things from your perspective is that you don't seem to understand or want to accept the idea of just 'giving up and giving in' no matter how many so-called experts seem to agree with you, is fundamentally un-American. In other words, that's just not the way that most Americans are 'wired'.

Our way of thinking has proven to be a good one, especially in the area of academic, social or political interests. The idea of free thinking, even though it goes against the real or percieved majority has:

1) Overturned LEGAL segregation (thank you, Dr. King)
2) Given women the right to vote
3) Introduced, perfected and made affordable thousands of new medical proceedures, drugs, practices and concepts.
4) Overturned the Nazi death camps, even though up to the time our WWII vets marched in and exposed them, many world and elected officials denied they existed or refused to believe the reports about them from those that escaped.
4) From an automotive perspective: Seatbelts, airbags, antilock brakes, stability control, automatic transmissions, air conditioning, etc, etc, etc, at one time were met with skepticism, resistance, roadblocks or some other hurdle that had to be overcome at the corporate or consumer level.

So, please, enough with the condescending talk about your degree, how many people agree with you, or just a general I'm-right-and-you're-wrong attitude.

Many people EXPECT different viewpoints in here; disagreeing with you (or me) isn't illegal, immoral or fattening.

So please, in the spirit of reaching out to you even though I know you disagree with me and many other people in here, present your opinion, your facts, your experiences, but enough with the policy of attacking anyone that disagrees with you.

Leave that to the politicians......

Given that we can't predict my local weather, I find it difficult to believe that we can predict the effects of greenhouse gasses with any accuracy.

The real problem we are facing is uncontrolled global population growth.

The constant refrain (in various forms) of "There's two sides to every story." is a dead giveaway.


Turn that around, and leave out the infammatory "hysteria" angle. The presumption becomes: "Experts are useless. And since it's comfortable to pretend a layman's opinion that nothing is wrong is meaningful, LET'S PARTY!

Which sounds like the reasoned position to you?

Absolutely mind boggling! I am truly astounded. You might want to give that rejoinder a little more thought.



A reasoned position would be that parroting untested theories of prognostication as if they were gospel is foolish.



Why would I turn that around? The reciprical of a statement often has no connection with the original statement. Which was, to paraphrase, " degreed professionals are often mistaken ". Pretty hard to dispute that.......Bob

I was reminded of this fact several months ago when the Pearl Harbor thread was zapped before it got passed it's first page.

So, Dave, waddaya say to ratcheting it down a notch or two?

I think the "Powers that be" took some heat over that one. Plus this thread is at least marginally connected to the Hobby vis-a-vis we need fuel to function. The Harbor thread also got pretty political pretty quickly with warming tempers. This thread has stayed mostly civil, and I might add, pretty entertaining given some of the logic displayed.

Dave,

As in times past, we're in violent agreement... the climate is changing... can you believe two weekends in April where the temp was over 100 in my back yard? We're differing on the cause(s) and the remed(ies).

As for the LA article... I think gas at five bucks a gallon will accomplish pretty much what they intend without establishing yet another greedy profit center for SoCal (Socialist State of California).

Now, if we could...

Stop building freeways and expanding existing freeways and invest in integrated rail/light rail/urban mass transit

Refuse to approve new housing and business park developments that make driving and multiple car families a necessity of daily life

Make it a requirement that bottled water companies pay an oil use royalty and that the return deposit on a PET bottle is at least $1. It would also be helpful to require labels that depict the bottle as requring on quarter of its volume in oil to produce, fill, and ship.

Impose a fuel use surcharge on air travel of less than 250 miles (total trip) immediately and ladder it up as other mass transit becomes available.

Cheers,
JMC

Here's a few more good ideas to save energy......

Require all auto tires to be out of round to make driving uncomfortable.

Require everyone to live no more than 10 feet from anyone else thus getting rid of those pesky lawns.

Make all pets illegal thus saving millions of tons of food not to mention the reduction in flatulance (green house gas). Gold fish would be allowed but only with tap water.

Tax the crap out of everything and anything that uses energy but is enjoyable and makes living worthwhile.

Outlaw restaurants. Everyone can stay at home and eat. Of course Starbucks is exempted.

Allow no new housing at all. Let them live with their parents.

Allow no new factories. Let the Chinese waste THEIR oil.

Regulate/tax the crap out of everything. Just look at the mess 200+ years of free enterprise has made of this country.

Pay no attention to the economic chaos draconian mucking about would cause, or to the multi millions of people who would lose their livlihoods. The law of unintended consequenses would of course be suspended until further notice..........Bob

Bob, as usual you're right on. And I do love the out-of-round tire idea. I'm surprised the greenies haven't thought of that one yet!

And Dave, it's really hard to take you seriously with that signature, "I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."

Gary

Actually, I think that's either a GW Bushism or maybe even a Dan Quayle gem.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...uh...won't get fooled again." -George W. Bush

Man I love that one.

And I know, we can do this and get a triple win....stop making the tires with automated machinery. Force workers to construct the tires by hand. This makes for
1) a really out of round tire (the purpose stated above)
2) means less pollution as the mahines are turned off
3) means we'll need to hire many more people to do this and that's a huge increase in the workforce. And since it'll be a skilled trade, that means it'll be a well paying job at that!

If we keep putting our minds to this, we can solve all the worlds problems.

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." is a Quayleism from 1989. I thought it the ultimate description of topics like this one until Steven Colbert invented the term "Truthiness".

Lately I've been looking for something better.

1. When everything has 2 sides, completely illegitimate concepts become acceptable. You can legitimize any lost yutz that comes down the pike simply by putting him across the table from someone correct who's stupid enough to debate the loser. War heros are "unfit for command". Nobody killed any jews in 1944. Mindless deficit spending becomes "prudent". Third and fourth explantations for a war started years ago become the original one. Sex with your mistress only counts when one particular act is breached. etc. etc. etc.

2. Dismissing professional advice because it could be wrong is stupid, especially when the advice is overwhelming in volume and the professionalism of the huge mass of advisors is impeccable. You can rationalize any explanation of your position you'd like. They all boil down to "See # 1 above. Fox News rules!".

It's over, whether you can comprehend that or not. It's way past the "Do you agree?" stage. Nobody rationally comes to another conclusion any more, unless they dutifully ignore more facts than can literally be counted at this point. Half the oil companies on earth and even the two oil men in the White House (who have nothing to gain and a lot to lose) are trying in some ways to fix this. If you don't want to fix it, fine. But don't expect respect for the decision.

And don't expect your hobby to not suffer for your decision either.

I suppose you also deny that Intelligent Design is a science, don't you Dave? They should teach both sides of the argument in high school biology. Nobody knows for sure! Evolution is merely a theory. And if you're so smart, answer me this: how can a frog evolve into a human being?

/sarcasm

Dave,

Calling anything you don't like an "illegitimate concept" and anyone that proposes such a "yutz" is exactly the tone and language that sours the value of this forum to so many people.

I've said things that did that for some people in here, and I am determined to provide interesting discussion for all the forum users in the future. I STRONGLY recommend you throttle down your venom and try to do the same.

The forum will be better for it.

Joe

The problem with the above is that to brand any argument as "illegitimate" is not only smugly arrogant it's just plain dumb. The facts of the matter are these........

The Earth is undergoing a new period of warming.
The Earth in the past has undergone periods of warming.
There is a body of evidence that green house gases are contributing to said recent warming.
There are forces of Nature at work that are not yet understood.
No one KNOWS what the ramifications of the above warming might be.
There are various and sundry factions that have an "adgenda" vis-a-vis the above warming trend.

So while some may blindly accept dogma as truth, I prefer to keep to keep an open mind, listen to and weigh the various arguments, temper statements made as absolute with experiance, and form my own judgements with the full knowledge that as time passes I will most likely have to modify my opinion as new facts reveal themselves.

We are in agreement that it's silly to sit across the table and try to debate a "yutz" that's "correct".

Good luck to you in your secure certitude.

Let's keep it all in the realm of "science" here, and proove that even "science" can be "wrong".

Yesterday, Pittsburgh was ranked #1 in air pollution, over LA which till yesterday held that dubious honor each year.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Weather/story?id=4758772&page=1
Note, for demonstration purposes, I'm NOT using a story from Fox News. OK, afterall, it is the Steel City, and they mine coal around here...and you see the old pictures and well, yes, the air must be bad there. Even look at the picture in the article and you can plainly see the pollution. Done, point proven, not using Fox, and science backs the point, Pittsburgh has the worst air pollution in the entire US.

Debunk time.
1) We'll start easy, the photograph. The photograph was taken on an overcast, cloudy day. That pollution you see in the picture, their called "clouds". Hrmm, clouds, all cities have clouds. I guess we have more clouds, and clouds are pollution. They must be, they're made to look like pollution in the photo, right?

2) The picture shows Pittsburgh, the city of, downtown, etc. The report says Pittsburgh, referring to the city. The air quality sample was taken in Clairton, a suburb of the city of Pittsburgh. Notice I said "the sample". Yea, one sample, taken from one suburb, next to an ancient coke plant and that's the quality of air for the entire city and the region. Oh, did I forget to mention that the coke plant is in a valley between two hills, hence a little trapping of the air going on there?

You see, if you look at the data one way, you draw certain conclusions. Look at the data another way, you can draw other conclusions. And if the clouds are just low enough to support your "warped" story, take the picture and make clouds into pollution. So all these educated scientists CAN'T be wrong, because they all have degrees, and well, those aren't clouds for this photo.

Take it all with a grain of salt, and in this case, there ARE 2 sides to this story, and there are 2 different opinions. And one of these opinions does stink, while the other does not. Makes one think, doesn't it.