THSCC Forums

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.

From my readings yes, global temperatures got warmer in the 90's, peaking in 1998, since then we have slightly cooled.



I am skeptical as hell.



The mirrors, seeding clouds, plankton blooms all scare the bejesus out of me. See my tire story as to why. We as humans are an arrogant species.




See, I don't drink that Kool Aide. CO2 increase follows temp rise according to my readings.



Why is there a big hue and cry? Two words- Slippery Slope. A little here, and a little there....

I found this an interesting example of a solution that wont work

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... print=true

Interview with the guy who started the CFC/ozone scare. He calls carbon trading a scam. Some other interesting doom and gloom towards the end.

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

Ryan,

How do you reconcile your disbelief regarding CO2 and climate change (not drinking the Kool Aid) and then hold up someone like James Lovelock as example of what is wrong with Carbon trading?

My understanding from that article is that he thinks Carbon Trading is a scam because it's not radical enough to work. That reducing output is not enough. What do you think of his opinion to convert a great deal of everything to charcoal and then bury it?

Richard

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.

My question would be why do you assume we NEED to do something about it? Until you can prove that our output is significant in the grand scheme and thus causing something that wouldn't have happened anyway, then I'm not sure we NEED to do something about it. I don't think that's been proven, but I admit to not having read that much on the topic, either.

Here's a question for you. How much extra fuel is required to be burned to "control emissions" and thus burn cleaner? How much fuel have we burned since emissions controls have been put in place thus getting us to our unintended goal of using up all our fossil fuels that much sooner? I'd guess it's quite a bit. One thing people should remember is that while greater fuel economy (from greater efficiency) does reduce emissions, the other things we REQUIRE you to do to reduce emissions DO NOT HELP fuel economy. So we burn a lot more fuel in the name of reducing emissions in many cases.

And for Mary, arguing this issue for me is quite certainly not about being inconvenienced. If that were the case I certainly wouldn't be the aggressive recycler that I am. But like Ryan, I'm skeptical of the data we've seen and the amount of money we're spending that could be going places that might be more important, like population growth. This is a real problem that nobody wants to talk about.

Some things to think about, anyway.


--Donnie

My reading of that article is also that Lovelock calls carbon trading a scam because it's not radical enough. He fully believes in greenhouse-gas-fueled global warming- as Richard points out, I would not have expected you to hold up him up as an example to support your viewpoint.

Lovelock, at least, is proposing we do something. As far as I can tell, your recommendation is to do nothing- there is no issue, the majority of scientists are fools or on the take from (who? environmentalists?), and if we just go back to our couches it'll all be over and forgotten soon enough.

_________________
Carl Fisher

Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531

I don't know, you tell me. My point is asking the question of what they should have done 35 years ago about the growing polar ice caps and to avoid the coming catastrophic ice age that at the time seemed to be the consensus within the scientific community? Furthermore, if they had taken actions, where would that put us today when we now think the catastrophe is warming rather than cooling?

I don't really have a problem with reducing C02 emissions and like alternative/renewable energy sources as long as we don't take drastic actions that have huge economic impacts, especially at a time when the global economy is in crisis already. I think my biggest gripe with the whole thing is the focus on the automobile. As Lovelock tries to point out in the article that Ryan posted, just the act of keeping 6 billion people alive on this planet has the biggest CO2 impact and his solution tries to address that. Whether it is the right solution, I am not expert enough to evaluate, but at least is has the proper focus of humankind's greatest impact on CO2 emissions. Focusing on automobile emissions is an expense drop in the bucket. Of course I'm still skeptical that the CO2 emissions are even the problem, or that there is a problem at all and fear that drastically reducing them may have unintended and undesirable consequences.

_________________
'07, '08, '11 Autocross VP
'06, '10 Mike Dishman Cup
'21 MX5, '13 Corvette GS, '92 Corvette 383 c.i. 413whp/390wtq, '03 Expedition

I can't prove it, and neither can anyone else, so far as I know. Nor can anyone disprove it. To those who believe in global climate change, the clock is ticking; for those who don't, it isn't. For that reason, it makes logical sense to make an effort to address the issue before indisputable proof is available. And of course there are some who say we've already waited too long.

According to the Most recent (2007) assessment report from the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "There is very high confidence that the net effect of human
activities since 1750 has been one of warming.", but they are not venturing a percentage contribution. As to whether human greenhouse gas emissions are causingl climate change, not surprisingly you can find plenty of opinions on both sides. But again, since in one case there is a benefit to acting quickly, it is logical to err in that direction while further evidence comes in.


I'm sure you know a lot more about cars than I do, Donnie. But can you give me an example of what you're talking about? It seems to me our cars are more gas-efficient than ever before, burning as lean as possible and making tons of power for their displacement as well. Are you saying that cars would get even better gas mileage if car companies weren't also required to worry about SOx and NOx emissions? That sounds potentially complicated to figure out which course would be worse for the planet overall. But since we're already on this course, I'm not too wistful for the other one.

_________________
Carl Fisher

Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531

The sky is falling!!!

Just because a person has the letters "PhD" following his name doesn't mean he always knows what he's talking about, or is not influenced by $$$. (I've experienced this firsthand many times) Please add a healthy dose of skepticism to the things you hear on TV and read in magazines (and especially on the Internet).

Just remember that not that long ago, everyone KNEW that the earth was flat, and was the center of the universe.

Carl, you know the Politicians write the reports, right?


As for Lovelock, he prove my point that carbon trading is only going to make CERTAIN people rich, not actually do anything.

As for burying charcoal? See my tire story.

I am gonna PM Nicholson, I am a hack at this compared to him.

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

Do you pay someone to take your recycled goods, or do people pay you for it? To me, that's the difference between trash and a resource.

edit: Penn and Teller's Bullshit on Recycling -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onDbTL9DFpA

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.

Actually I don't think Lovelock proved anything regarding carbon trading. He just offered up his opinion in an interview. So why believe him over anyone else? Especially if you are skeptical of other things he says such as the charcoal idea or his other beliefs regarding global warming.

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.

So you think Carbon Trading, as proposed by Obama, will "Fix" anything.

I don't, Lovelock doesn't either. I don't want any trading, Lovelock wants us to live in caves, hold hands and sing Kumbayah. Yeah, we differ there.

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

I really don't know the details of that ice age article, but you mention there was a scientific consensus at that time that a new ice age was upon us. I am very doubtful that there was a large consensus on that or even that it was even a topic of discussion. I could be wrong, but that article just reads to me like a fluff article on a theory put forth by one or two people. If I remember correctly the article even mentioned at least one person who felt that the theory was wrong.

My point above when I asked "what action" is exactly that there was no action because there was no real or perceived problem at that time.

But the point you are trying to make is valid in that we should not be doing radical changes on theories that might be wrong. I would agree that radical ideas regarding “how to fix global warming” are not very wise as they may be risky regarding long term effects if it doesn't work as expected. If someone told you that you could loose weight quick by eating a diet of ground up plastic bottles and grain alcohol that might seem like a risky proposition to your health. However if someone said that by eating a bit less you might loose some weight, that sounds less risky. Why would it be less risky? Because you are cutting back on something you are already doing. Additionally there is already data on what happens if you cut back (we know how much food/water is required to live). If you loose weight, then it worked! If you don’t loose weight, then the likelihood that you caused unintended consequences is pretty low.

Now we may all disagree about the need to reduce CO2 or by how much and how fast, but I think we probably could agree that there are ways to reduce CO2 safely and without great risk of unintended consequences. Especially if the method we pick is by just doing less of what we have already been doing.

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.

I have zero clue regarding Obama's proposed plan. I don't know enough about it to be for or against it.

If I am arguing for anything, it would be that I would like people to try to not view global environmental issue via their own political lens. I am going to make a broad generalization here that may get me in hot water. Especially as generalizations are usually not a good thing when you try to label people. But here it is anyhow…

I think that many (not all) people are opposed to ideas such as global warming because a “fix” (if one even exists) would require…

1. Would require cooperation across the globe.
2. Would require solutions driven not by the private sector, but by governments.
3. Would require money to be spent without any short term return on investment.

That the root of their opposition is really based upon political beliefs that run counter to the items listed above. So rather than just saying "I don't want to do this" because it runs against my core political beliefs, they find other reasons to hide behind. I think that if more and more evidence is found to support the existance of global warming, that other reasons will be found to justify non-action.

If the “fix” for global warming was to put an extra ½ spoon of sugar in your coffee every morning there would be little opposition because it wouldn’t require any of the above.

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.

Ryan, please cite your source document.

_________________
Carl Fisher

Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531