Gas Prices vs New Car Sales

[joe_padavano]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W Burgess</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Charlie, any rollback has a cable or chain with hooks. </div></div>

Rollback? Tow truck? You guys are SOOO 20th century. Try one of these:

http://www.samsontowtrucks.com/

(be sure to watch the video)

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sweepspear</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I would like to know from the global warming crowd is, just what is the ideal temperature the climate should be?

They surely must have a benchmark they are comparing to.

No matter what happens, they blame global warming.

Warm winter? Global Warming.

Cold winter? Global warming.

An unusually high number of hurricanes? Global warming.

No hurricanes? Global warming.

And so on, and so forth to ad nauseam.

</div></div>

When you go to school for this stuff, study it thoroughly, and know what you're talking about,...this makes perfect sense. (To the extent it's true, I've never heard anyone blame <span style="text-decoration: underline">fewer</span> storms on climate change.) The environmental sciences must be the least respected field on earth, because everybody seems to think they know better then the experts who've spent their lives studying this stuff.

It's real. Deal with it.

[Dave@Moon]

About 75%-85% of Priuses have motion detection alarms as well. It's part of the most popular option package. Just tapping on the windows will set it off. Even better, you can't tell by looking. All Priuses have the same blinking red light on the dash (for keyless entry) whether the alarm's there or not.

That kind of security is not all good. The most common means of stealing one of these things is by car jacking.

[Reatta Man]

Wayne,

"flat spotted tires"

Isn't that the legal definition of Uniroyals? Or, as former S-10 owners like myself liked to call them....Useless Royals!

[R W Burgess]

Joe, I wished you had told me that 4 months ago. I've got a set of those Royals on my Caprice. They have been balanced 3 times. I finally noticed that one was out of round, rediculous!

[R W Burgess]

Cool wreckers Joe.

But, the guys down here in Virginnie have to use whatever wrecker is available to <span style="font-weight: bold">steal</span> on any certain night.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

When you go to school for this stuff, study it thoroughly, and know what you're talking about,...this makes perfect sense. (To the extent it's true, I've never heard anyone blame <span style="text-decoration: underline">fewer</span> storms on climate change.) The environmental sciences must be the least respected field on earth, because everybody seems to think they know better then the experts who've spent their lives studying this stuff.

It's real. Deal with it. </div></div>

It's waaaay too complex for anyone to study. The earth will always take care of itself. That's <span style="font-weight: bold">part </span> of nature........

[Reatta Man]

"It's real, Deal with it?"

Once again, for the 10,000th time, this is the kind of arrogant statement that the global warming crowd keeps saying that makes it almost impossible to listen to them.

Dave, those kind of statements do your point of view no good whatsoever.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's waaaay too complex for anyone to study. The earth will always take care of itself. That's part of nature........</div></div>

Nothing is too complex to study for those who are equipped to do so. The arrogance here is the failure for some people to admit that there are others on the planet smarter than they are (at least in this one area). I can't design a hybrid car, but I can appreciate the expertise of those who can. I can't do brain surgery, but I can appreciate the expertise of the surgeon. I can't maintain golf course greens, but I can admire the skill of those who do. It's a pity expertise is not a universally appreciated concept.

And yes the earth does take care of itself. Right now its trying to bake off all these carbon makers who are ruining it for the rest of it's inhabitants. That's what studying something does for you. It gives you the power of understanding so that these actions can be anticpated and dealt with. (Have I used that phrase before? )

[Reatta Man]

Well, if you are serious about reducing the carbon footprint while the earth is trying to "burn up those carbon makers who are ruining it for the rest of", you could start by getting Al Gore and the other limosine usliberals to:

a) Cut down his electrical usage to something near that of the average American household rather than the thousands of dollars he spends every month on electricity,

Get him and the others to stop flying private jets around burning thousand and thousands of gallons of jet fuel in the upper atmosphere, giving speeches about how we all need to make sacrifices

c) Get the Kennedys and many other like them to stop stalling the installation of wind generators around their estates that might "spoil their view."

d) Stop driving their little politically correct cars when they are going shopping on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, but demand to have an obscene 40-foot long limo take them everywhere when the studio is paying the bill.

The list could be much, much longer, but you get the idea.

[joe_padavano]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">About 75%-85% of Priuses have motion detection alarms as well... </div></div>

Yeah, and how about a show of hands - has anyone here EVER called the police about a potential car theft when you heard an alarm going off? Anyone?

Didn't think so. More likely you've called to complain because the car parked across the street has had it's alarm going off ever since that wind gust an hour ago.

[joe_padavano]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sweepspear</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I would like to know from the global warming crowd is, just what is the ideal temperature the climate should be?

They surely must have a benchmark they are comparing to.

No matter what happens, they blame global warming.

Warm winter? Global Warming.

Cold winter? Global warming.

An unusually high number of hurricanes? Global warming.

No hurricanes? Global warming.

And so on, and so forth to ad nauseam.

</div></div>

When you go to school for this stuff, study it thoroughly, and know what you're talking about,...this makes perfect sense. (To the extent it's true, I've never heard anyone blame <span style="text-decoration: underline">fewer</span> storms on climate change.) The environmental sciences must be the least respected field on earth, because everybody seems to think they know better then the experts who've spent their lives studying this stuff.

It's real. Deal with it. </div></div>

Actually, I do believe we are having an impact on the environment. The problem I have is that humans have only had the ability to monitor the environment on a global scale since geosynchronous weather satellites were launched in the 1970s. On the world climate timescale that's a nit. Yes, there have been attempts to take core samples, collect historical data, etc., but the reality is that these are all very isolated data points. It's very easy to make the data fit the theory you're trying to prove. Natural variation in the climate far exceeds the trends we've been monitoring for the last 40 years. That's not to say that humans haven't influenced it. It's also not to say that we shouldn't be doing something about it. I just get very, very nervous when politicians are attempting to understand and act on science, since their track record (on both sides) has been spotty at best. And yes, I AM a rocket scientist (well, engineer, actually - someday I'll have to tell you the story about the differences between scientists and engineers).

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, there have been attempts to take core samples, collect historical data, etc., but the reality is that these are all very isolated data points.</div></div>

Tens upon tens of thousands of "isolated data points". Actually we're probably well into the hundreds of thousands by now.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Natural variation in the climate far exceeds the trends we've been monitoring for the last 40 years.</div></div>

On a geologic time scale, yes--<span style="font-weight: bold">but only to the negative</span> (during the ice ages). As a whole the globe hasn't been this warm since very early in the Jurassic Period, if ever. And (<span style="font-style: italic">possibly</span> excepting the post ice age global warming periods, likely as a result of vegetation biomass decline during the ice ages), it has <span style="text-decoration: underline">never</span> warmed this fast, ever.

We're warming up after a time of steady warm climate over the last 500 years. That's unprecedented, but predicted accurately with precision by models when CO2 concentrations were doubled <span style="text-decoration: underline">before it happened</span>.

[ex98thdrill]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Quote:

will become a hot black-market commodity like airbags...

.....or catalytic converters here in Virginia. They have been cutting them off, right and left (NO offence, political friends!).

</div></div>It doesn't stop there either Wayne. In our areas they've had problems with the following:

1. Catalytic Converters - being stolen off of brand new cars in the dealer's lot.

2. Caps off of the fire hydrants.

3. Veterans grave markers stolen out of the cemetaries.

4. Beer Kegs - yes believe it or not, BEER KEGS!! They were charging a $10 deposit for beer keg rental and they upped the deposit to $35 because scrap price was higher than the original $10 deposit.

[joe_padavano]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, there have been attempts to take core samples, collect historical data, etc., but the reality is that these are all very isolated data points.</div></div>

Tens upon tens of thousands of "isolated data points". Actually we're probably well into the hundreds of thousands by now.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Natural variation in the climate far exceeds the trends we've been monitoring for the last 40 years.</div></div>

On a geologic time scale, yes--<span style="font-weight: bold">but only to the negative</span> (during the ice ages). As a whole the globe hasn't been this warm since very early in the Jurassic Period, if ever. And (<span style="font-style: italic">possibly</span> excepting the post ice age global warming periods, likely as a result of vegetation biomass decline during the ice ages), it has <span style="text-decoration: underline">never</span> warmed this fast, ever.

We're warming up after a time of steady warm climate over the last 500 years. That's unprecedented, but predicted accurately with precision by models when CO2 concentrations were doubled <span style="text-decoration: underline">before it happened</span>. </div></div>

Again, while I don't disagree with your overall position, I believe you and others are putting way too much faith in measurements that have no "ground truth" to verify them. Yes, one can infer trends, but there were no global satellites with matching ground calibration data to verify measurements 500 years ago. What we have is second- and third-hand data from things like core samples. Unfortunately, this data has to have large error bands on it, and when we're only talking about a few degrees difference, that's well withing the possible margin of error. This is not to say that humanity shouldn't take immediate steps to help the environment, but I do think the severity and speed of the changes are somewhat oversold.

As an example, let's not forget that for the past three years running, NOAA has predicted above average severity for the annual hurricane seasons. 2006 and 2007 were actually well BELOW average and we'll see how 2008 turns out. That tells me that these predictions are not yet accurate enough to take as gospel truth. I also question the assertions that hurricanes are becoming more numerous and more severe. It's only been within the last 20 years or so that we've had laser wind sounders in orbit that can accurately measure hurricane wind velocities. Prior to that time, we only have partial data from storms that actually reached land.

[Dave@Moon]

First of all, beware of confusing year-to-year prognostications with summary analysis of events that have already occurred. Of course momentary predictions are not possible as yet, but the overall trends have been consistent and constant, and there is <span style="text-decoration: underline">every</span> reason to believe that will continue.

As an analogy, in Pennsylvania you are not supposed to be cited for speeding using radar unless that point analysis shows you to be at least 6 mph over the limit. If you are timed over distance, you can be nailed for being tenths of a mph over. Trying to predict next year's hurricane count is a point analysis, predicting an overall trend over decades is another matter.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unfortunately, this data has to have large error bands on it, and when we're only talking about a few degrees difference, that's well withing the possible margin of error.</div></div>

The "error bands" you speak of make no sense to me. The observations I'm familiar with (trapped gas analyses, pollen and algae core analyses, etc.) have been remarkably consistent. The margins of error in virtually all of the major studies are miles from anything that would cast doubt on their conclusions. Taken as a whole, with overlapping consistency followed by overlapping consistency to an almost exponential degree among studies from every possible approach, it's no wonder why the voices of science are in unison on this one. The theory of the atom should be so well studied or well known.

Besides that, this attitude of requiring absolute certitude of every measure in direct form is absurd. It's a bit like having to prove you haven't had a temperature of 104 for the last week prior to being allowed treatment for the flu when you show up in that condition at the emergency room. It also gives license to every oil/coal junkie & pusher out there (here on the forum, out in the world of commerce, and in the political arena) to scoff at science and knowledge in general. Every person you've ever heard equate efforts in this area with engineering/hypotheses failures of the past did so with this excuse for hedonism in mind.

[Reatta Man]

Dave,

You keep saying "the voices of science are in unison on this" but it is clear they are not. It is clear that you believe they are, but others see this is not correct, even by the most casual of observances.

Believe what you will, and say what you wish. The differences in opinion and viewpoints makes this forum interesting. But others don't believe a lot of it when you mix what you believe with these glaringly incorrect assumptions.

Joe

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But others don't believe a lot of it when you mix what you believe with these glaringly incorrect assumptions. </div></div>

They're not incorrect. One of us is being sold a bill of goods. One of us is an expert in the field. I doubt they're one in the same.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's waaaay too complex for anyone to study. The earth will always take care of itself. That's part of nature........</div></div>

Nothing is too complex to study for those who are equipped to do so. The arrogance here is the failure for some people to admit that there are others on the planet smarter than they are (at least in this one area). I can't design a hybrid car, but I can appreciate the expertise of those who can. I can't do brain surgery, but I can appreciate the expertise of the surgeon. I can't maintain golf course greens, but I can admire the skill of those who do. It's a pity expertise is not a universally appreciated concept.

And yes the earth does take care of itself. Right now its trying to bake off all these carbon makers who are ruining it for the rest of it's inhabitants. That's what studying something does for you. It gives you the power of understanding so that these actions can be anticpated and dealt with. (Have I used that phrase before? ) </div></div>

Meteroligists have been studying weather paterns for years now adding new equipment year after year and still can't predict the weather in an 8 hour segment. The earths too complex..............it can't be done. They're close, but not perfect.

[joe_padavano]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The "error bands" you speak of make no sense to me. The observations I'm familiar with (trapped gas analyses, pollen and algae core analyses, etc.) have been remarkably consistent. The margins of error in virtually all of the major studies are miles from anything that would cast doubt on their conclusions. Taken as a whole, with overlapping consistency followed by overlapping consistency to an almost exponential degree among studies from every possible approach, it's no wonder why the voices of science are in unison on this one. The theory of the atom should be so well studied or well known.

Besides that, this attitude of requiring absolute certitude of every measure in direct form is absurd. It's a bit like having to prove you haven't had a temperature of 104 for the last week prior to being allowed treatment for the flu when you show up in that condition at the emergency room. It also gives license to every oil/coal junkie & pusher out there (here on the forum, out in the world of commerce, and in the political arena) to scoff at science and knowledge in general. Every person you've ever heard equate efforts in this area with engineering/hypotheses failures of the past did so with this excuse for hedonism in mind. </div></div>

Sorry, but EVERY engineering and scientific measurement has some margin of error. That's why direct validation of a computer model is so important. I can list dozens of failures of space launch vehicles (as an example) where people put too much faith in an inadequately validated model, then tried to extrapolate the data. The result was mission failure.

Let me try this one more time. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. Sorry for the shouting. I <span style="text-decoration: underline">DO</span> think that in many cases the observations are being skewed - OK that's too strong a word, let's say "interpreted" - to fit the theory, which is exactly the process that led to the Challenger space shuttle failure. You'll pardon and hopefully understand my skepticism when someone attempts to present climate data from thousands of years ago as irrefutable facts with no margin of error on the results. I can't do that with data I collect <span style="text-decoration: underline">today</span>.

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

...predicted accurately with precision by models when CO2 concentrations were doubled <span style="text-decoration: underline">before it happened</span>. </div></div>

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn <span style="font-style: italic">occasionally</span>...

I deal with modeling in a much more contrained environment than the atmosphere, and there are significant difficulties with calculation of just 40-50 variables. I have absolutely no faith in the atmospheric models the AGW crowd favors for CO2 simulations. Ever wonder why there are six major hurricane prediction models? Ever look at the divergence? That's a small problem in comparison to global warming models.

JMC

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe_padavano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Sorry, but EVERY engineering and scientific measurement has some margin of error. That's why direct validation of a computer model is so important. I can list dozens of failures of space launch vehicles (as an example) where people put too much faith in an inadequately validated model, then tried to extrapolate the data. The result was mission failure.

Let me try this one more time. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. Sorry for the shouting. I <span style="text-decoration: underline">DO</span> think that in many cases the observations are being skewed - OK that's too strong a word, let's say "interpreted" - to fit the theory, which is exactly the process that led to the Challenger space shuttle failure. You'll pardon and hopefully understand my skepticism when someone attempts to present climate data from thousands of years ago as irrefutable facts with no margin of error on the results. I can't do that with data I collect <span style="text-decoration: underline">today</span>. </div></div>

Oh, my! A voice of reason from actual application of science and engineering in a real job! Joe that's the same thing I've been saying on this subject in various forums for four years. It's like the 'warmers' never considered that space programs have had to accomodate solar cycles for decades in calculating low earth orbit station keeping for space vehicles. If sun cycle activity can warm the atmosphere sufficiently to expand its reach into near space, how much impact can it have on surface temp?

Cheers,

JMC

[Reatta Man]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

They're not incorrect. One of us is being sold a bill of goods. One of us is an expert in the field. I doubt they're one in the same. </div></div>

Well, Dave,

I'm an expert in knowing that not everyone agrees with you or the scientists that support the theory you endorse.

I also know that if a theory has dozens of strings attached that would include endorsing new taxes and restrictions on American industries that would cause thousands of more jobs to shift to China and India, that that theory is a bill of goods.

Does that help?

[MarkV]

Dave,

Maybe you can explain something to me? I picked up my 1989 Buick Lesabre 2 door on Fri. from my Uncle, it runs fantastic, the air works great,etc. and is fully loaded with a leather interior and all the options. Anyway, I did mostly in town driving with a little highway, and I am getting 26.7 MPG. Now of course if I drove all highway, it would be better. Maybe around 30, and this is with the ac full blast. Anyway, why is it that my 20 year old car gets better mileage than most of the cars on the road? Also, since that is 20 year old technology, why arent all cars getting 40 MPG?

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But others don't believe a lot of it when you mix what you believe with these glaringly incorrect assumptions. </div></div>

They're not incorrect. One of us is being sold a bill of goods. One of us is an expert in the field. I doubt they're one in the same. </div></div>

D@M, just out of curiosity, I wonder what your thoughts are on the science presented in this articlee from <span style="font-style: italic">American Thinker</span>...

Hope for Global Warming Deniers

Seems that there is a pretty sound theory that 'global warming' will actually be a 1 to 2 degree Celcius <span style="font-style: italic">decrease </span>over the next 20-30 years. Blame it on Jupiter and Saturn, and of course, CO2.

On that we can all agree.

Cheers,

JMC

[Tom M]

http://www.greatchange.org/footnotes-1-liter-car.html

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1948Lincoln</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave,

Maybe you can explain something to me? I picked up my 1989 Buick Lesabre 2 door on Fri. from my Uncle, it runs fantastic, the air works great,etc. and is fully loaded with a leather interior and all the options. Anyway, I did mostly in town driving with a little highway, and I am getting 26.7 MPG. Now of course if I drove all highway, it would be better. Maybe around 30, and this is with the ac full blast. Anyway, why is it that my 20 year old car gets better mileage than most of the cars on the road? Also, since that is 20 year old technology, why arent all cars getting 40 MPG? </div></div>

That's an easy one. Look at the car.

That design is efficiency personified. There's no extra weight, no bulging fenders, no body cladding, no oversize spoilers, no 60 series 17 inch tires, etc. The engine produces enough horsepower to move the car adequately, but it's no rocket ship. A 2005 LeSabre would blow it out of the water at the track.

The next issue is you just gave a mpg figure for one day's driving. Presumably you filled the tank in the morning, drove it around, and filed it again. The expansion of the gas in the tank greatly impacts the number you got. I once measured 68 mpg in a Ford Falcon doing the same thing (for over 60 miles driving over 2 hours). Fueleconomy.gov lists typical gas consumption for your car to be around 24 mpg (owner reported). The EPA rating (original) was 19 mpg city/29 mpg hwy.

1980s cars in general were much more fuel efficient than what's available today. Engines were MUCH smaller, cars were MUCH slower, and almost nobody bought a truck as a an image statement. There has been a lot of progress in relative efficiency since 1989, but it has all gone into making cars faster and trucks even more faster (grammar use deliberate).

[MarkV]

Well, still getting the same MPG! It was over the weekend, I filled it up on Fri. and filled it up on Sun again. As for owner reported MPG. The guys on the Buick forum talked about that in my 1989 Buick post. They said it gets 30 hwy. All I know is that I can run the air full blast and it runs great and has alot of pick up and go and it gets great mpg! One more thing, mine isnt that one up top, mine is the 'old person's model' complete with power everything, spoke wheels, and chrome trim! It is immaculate!

[Rawja]

I have an '88 Buick Reatta with the 3800 that (if I tred lightly on the right-hand pedal) gives me the proverbial 30MPG on the highway.

One thing that no one addresses around here is that about 81% of Americans live in urban or suburban settings. Doing my daily drive to work, my nifty 30MPG car's mileage plummets to 13-16MPG if I don't pay attention to hyper-milage techniques, and 18-20 if I do. That coupled with gas presently selling locally for $ 4.39/gallon makes the value equation for a hybrid vs. standard a bit different, at least here in NY.

I've inferred after speaking to you(s) over the years many of you live in exurban or rural settings. Obviously you have much more opportunity to achieve the maximum MPG and taking into account that Hybrid's advantages are not what they achieve in highway driving, maybe a hybrid does not provide the full benefit that it does for the other 81% of the population.

Just something to think about.

[Reatta Man]

Well, if the doom-and-gloomers were right that sales went down due to gas prices, then sales should go up when gas hits $3.50 per gallon by Labor Day?

Hmmm....

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: John Chapman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

D@M, just out of curiosity, I wonder what your thoughts are on the science presented in this articlee from <span style="font-style: italic">American Thinker</span>...

Hope for Global Warming Deniers

Seems that there is a pretty sound theory that 'global warming' will actually be a 1 to 2 degree Celcius <span style="font-style: italic">decrease </span>over the next 20-30 years. Blame it on Jupiter and Saturn, and of course, CO2.

On that we can all agree.

Cheers,

JMC </div></div>

I never got around to reading this thing until now. After it was done loading my computer with lots of spyware that I'll have to strip out (We can't have Rush knowing what we're up to, can we? ), I went through it. It's not what you think it is.

Christopher Chantrill is a far right wing blogger with no apparant scientific training whatsoever. (In fact his biography as it appears on his personal blog/web site shows no education at all.) His writings, almost exclusively found on this conservative activist blog and his own, run the gamut from repeating disinformation about various Democrats to defending every aspect of Bush to advocation of privatization of everything up to and including all public schools. It typical stuff for The American Thinker, which has been instumental in the production and distribution of misinformation on nearly every Democrat, and is one of the main sources for the Rush Limbaugh Show. It's interesting that he/they continues to pursue this topic at this late date, seeing as it is almost the only one where John McCain is conceivably to the "left" of Barrack Obama.

His only "scientific" source is Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama, one of the most vocal of the tiny contingent of "doubters" out there. (He's also just about the most vocal advocate of creationism/"intelligent design" in all of achedemia as well, but that's another take.) Typical of such "doubters", he ignores all evidence that isn't a direct measurement of temperature. Therefore since cave men didn't have bimetallic strips and mercury thermometers, global warming doesn't exist. Even at that he's hanging his hopes on a two year trend that's (at best) debatable and at that makes little difference. Any comprehensive scientific approach to the evidence cannot enjoy such luxury/myopia.

It's the only way to cop out of the problem, pretend the evidence outside your own field doesn't exist. Kind of pathetic, really.

==================

(<span style="font-style: italic">BTW, I wrote the line about "not letting Rush know what we're up to" before I found out how tight he was with this source. Do you see how predictable all of this is?</span>)

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After it was done loading my computer with lots of spyware that I'll have to strip out (We can't have Rush knowing what we're up to, can we? ), </div></div>

Dave, Interesting response, but I'm startled by the spyware comment... I've had no problems with any of the four or five computers that I use to access the site. Certainly no spyware attempts that I can discern using a bevy of very effective protective measures. Wonder what's with that...? I might have to try it from my 'sacrificial' unprotected old laptop and see what happens.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wrote the line about "not letting Rush know what we're up to" before I found out how tight he was with this source. Do you see how predictable all of this is?) </div></div>

Very predictable, and very similar to the MSM. The truth is in the details between the hype.

Cheers,

JMC

[Dave@Moon]

After I made that post I ran my Webroot Spysweeper program. It stripped out 33 tracking cookies, at least 25 of which I know were loaded from that site. (I normally clean out all cookies at the end of the day anyway.) It took a long time to load a fairly small page, so i knew something was up. Fortunately it was only tracking cookies that I got hit with.

[MarkV]

"run the gamut from repeating disinformation about various Democrats"

Which ones? and what disinfomation out of curiosity? Didnt read the article.

"defending every aspect of Bush"

Well, that is President Bush! Even though he has screwed up he is still the President, I am tired of people saying Bush, Bush or Clinton, without President before it! And regardless of what people think of him here are 3 undeniable facts:

No attacks on mainland American soil in almost 8 years

The economy is screwed but, the President merely proposes a budget, who approves it?.....Congress! and the Democrats have been in control since 2006!

Finally, The President has approval ratings in the mid 20's but, no one is willing to say what congress has? Guess what, they have 7%!

"He's also just about the most vocal advocate of creationism/"intelligent design" in all of achedemia as well, but that's another take."

And what is wrong with that? It is much better than thinking that we were a puddle of goo and were shocked by electrical pulses from a space amoeba! And here is the main thing, what/who/why? created the 'big bang'? No evolutionist can ever answer that one!

'The American Thinker, which has been instumental in the production and distribution of misinformation on nearly every Democrat, and is one of the main sources for the Rush Limbaugh'

It is better than having Move On.org as a source, the one that did not pull off their discussion boards for days, posters who said that Tony Snow should die (when he was first diagnosed with cancer, he has since died)

'His only "scientific" source is Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama '

Well it is far better to have him as a 'scientific' source than some of the other 'scientific sources' out there like fmr. deposed Vice President Al Gore, Barbara Streisand, or Leonardo Decaprio

"It's the only way to cop out of the problem, pretend the evidence outside your own field doesn't exist. Kind of pathetic, really"

I say that everyday after I see a puff piece on Obama on one of the big 3 networks!

"Even at that he's hanging his hopes on a two year trend that's (at best) debatable and at that makes little difference. Any comprehensive scientific approach to the evidence cannot enjoy such luxury/myopia."

Why is it that people like you are so negative! One cannot predict the future! Global Warming Logic is like the logic used in this statement:

George Bush has been President for 7.5 years so, he will continue being President for 7.5 more

We have had warming and cooling trends before, just ask any old person who was an adult in the 1930's they will tell you that it was as hot back then as it is now during the summers.

"Typical of such "doubters", he ignores all evidence that isn't a direct measurement of temperature. Therefore since cave men didn't have bimetallic strips and mercury thermometers, global warming doesn't exist"

You can assume nothing in science, it must be proven why is it that people think the earth is Billions of years old? There is no evidence to back that up! Also, temperature has only been measured and recorded since around the mid-late 1800's so, we dont have a long enough span to work with in relative age to the earth for a correlative comparison.

To lighten up the mood after my 'Malaise' Some campaigns from the present and past to remember in 2008! (I am a History Major)

Just words just speeches.....

For the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American

(Obama studdering worse than President Bush)

I voted for the 87 million before I voted against it

'Lock Box...'

If Kitty Dukakis were murdered would you seek the death penalty?

......no...... (then he jumped into that tank with that helmet on! and Kitty became an alcholic because of her jerk husband saying that! )

'I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, and you sir are no Jack Kennedy!' (Bentsen should have been Pres. and Dukakis the VP)

'I will not make age an issue in this campaign..I will not for political purposes exploit my opponent's youth and inexperience' (then Reagan won every state except for Minnesota)

(Gerald Ford Falling Down The Stairs....Thump!)

[MarkV]

"Writing in the New York Times, Felicity Barringer credited American Thinker with breaking the story that California was considering requiring programmable thermostats in private homes which could be controlled by officials in the event of power supply difficulties. In the resulting national controversy, California withdrew the proposed regulation [5]"

Thank goodness for that! Whats next....Liberal Controlled T.V.? LOL!

[Dave@Moon]

Have I said it enough yet that I'm not interested in religious conversions on this topic?

The facts are what the facts are. Believe what you want.

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, that is President Bush! Even though he has screwed up he is still the President, I am tired of people saying Bush, Bush or Clinton, without President before it! And regardless of what people think of him here are 3 undeniable facts:

No attacks on mainland American soil in almost 8 years</div></div>

I have this magic rock on my desk that protects me from tiger attacks. I haven't been attacked by a tiger in almost 8 years, therefore it must work.

Correlation doesn't imply causation. You want to singlehandedly credit <span style="font-style: italic">President</span> Bush with eliminating all homeland attacks, but your very next comment says it's Congress's fault for the faltering economy. Hmmmmm...

Do the streets in your town go both ways or just one?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The economy is screwed but, the President merely proposes a budget, who approves it?.....Congress! and the Democrats have been in control since 2006!</div></div>

I guess everything was just fine up until 19 months ago, right? See comment #1.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Finally, The President has approval ratings in the mid 20's but, no one is willing to say what congress has? Guess what, they have 7%! </div></div>

Ah, moral relativism. Sure, Mr. X really did some really bad things, but look at Hitler--he was much worse! Setting a precedent for sucking doesn't absolve all subsequent people who also suck.

If you're going to do that, consider this: even Nixon, after announcing his resignation, had better approval ratings than the current president (23% vs. 19%). What does that suggest? I don't know. They're averages based on opinions.

You should also remember that 37% of all statistics are made up (I made that up). But, on easy things like your claims, you really should do your homework before trying to make a point like this. Congress's current approval rating (compiled and averaged from all primary polling sources) is 19.3% . That certainly stinks, no doubt about it, but it's still 3 times better than your claim. Don't let Rush do your homework for you, lad. At best, it makes you ill-informed. At worst, makes the rest of your arguments, no matter how valid they may be, much easier to dismiss because you got the easy stuff wrong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what is wrong with that? It is much better than thinking that we were a puddle of goo and were shocked by electrical pulses from a space amoeba! And here is the main thing, what/who/why? created the 'big bang'? No evolutionist can ever answer that one!</div></div>

Intelligent design isn't science, and pretending it is discredits any scientific claims one may choose to make on just about any other topic outside of the seminary. It follows no scientific principles and offers no veracity of its claims except those that are faith-based. You can choose to <span style="font-style: italic">believe</span> in God, but science can show you a virus <span style="font-style: italic">evolving</span> in front of your eyes...

On a side note, evolution and the Big Bang are not related.

Also, not to start a giant theological discussion, but who created God? That's equally mysterious.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well it is far better to have him as a 'scientific' source than some of the other 'scientific sources' out there like fmr. deposed Vice President Al Gore, Barbara Streisand, or Leonardo Decaprio </div></div>

Attacking the source is what people do when the facts don't line up the way they want them to (I'm sure this is where all that nonsense about "teaching the controversy" comes from). Not that I'm a fan of any such "expert," but I'd rather listen to someone with a large consensus of scientific experts advising him using sound scientific principles and research rather than a lone guy who also believes in magic. See comment above regarding intelligent design.

Streisand and DeCaprio can go jump in a lake, however.

PS: Go look up "deposed." I don't think that word means what you think it means.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">George Bush has been President for 7.5 years so, he will continue being President for 7.5 more

We have had warming and cooling trends before, just ask any old person who was an adult in the 1930's they will tell you that it was as hot back then as it is now during the summers.</div></div>

The thing that global warming opponents don't seem to grasp (and I think this was part of Dave's point) is that global warming isn't merely about temperatures rising. Only the most bluntly informed think that's the problem. They assume that "global warming" means that Alaska will be the new Florida. What they fail to grasp is that slight changes in temperature can have widespread changes in climatic conditions throughout the world. More hurricanes, tsunamis, melting ice caps, drought, etc. are all side effects of global warming, not just numbers on a thermometer. If it was only about Cleveland being 30 degrees in December instead of 28, I don't think there would be as much furor over the situation.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can assume nothing in science, it must be proven why is it that people think the earth is Billions of years old? There is no evidence to back that up! Also, temperature has only been measured and recorded since around the mid-late 1800's so, we dont have a long enough span to work with in relative age to the earth for a correlative comparison.</div></div>

Uh, what? I'm going to assume that you're just saying that to be contentious and that you don't really believe those words you've written. You're 20, so you had at least high school science, geology, biology and other hard sciences, and I'm going to assume that you paid enough attention to pass those classes and get a diploma. So this is a joke, right?

Or were dinosaur fossils were put in the ground by the devil to fool us into thinking the earth is several tens of billions of years old instead of 4000?

The thing about hard science that is difficult for a lot of people to swallow is that there really are things that are known for certain. The core of science is repeatability, and things like the age of the earth can be reliably measured anytime, anywhere using a variety of different materials. Look up carbon dating--there isn't much slop in that measuring technique. Again, only the flattest of heads assumes that everything in science must be as speculative as everything in theology. They are both valid fields of study, but they are not equivalent.

Here's some good reading for you, Wes: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/. Virtually every one of your statements is a logical fallacy of one kind or another--read the link and look at your statements again and see which fallacy applies to which statement. I think you'll be surprised. You use a lot of assumptions that are used by political pundits the world over to convince the uneducated masses that opinion is actually fact. Knowing where your information is coming from and how to process it logically will make you a much better critical thinker when it comes to matters like these we're discussing. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk. You seem like a smart fellow, so perhaps this will help you focus your talents and help you process the information with a critical eye.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Writing in the New York Times, Felicity Barringer credited American Thinker with breaking the story that California was considering requiring programmable thermostats in private homes which could be controlled by officials in the event of power supply difficulties. In the resulting national controversy, California withdrew the proposed regulation [5]"</div></div>

This scares the crap out of me.

[R W Burgess]

Another one goen political...............