Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Notice you can't provide any support to refute the statement, other than simply
claiming "not true." Specific support? Referring to a general newsgroup(!) or
simply some organization doesn't cut it. You couldn't even say exactly was wrong
(according to YOU) about the information above.

 

There are "hundreds" of articles out there that support racism too, but that does
not make them right. Notice that you couldn't actually dispute the information
above or how it was obtained. Citing some newsgroup doesn't provide any
credibility.

 

Wrong again, Lloyd. The NAS and NSF both worried about that.

Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled
" At the time the U.S. Department of Energy was created in 1977, there was
widespread concern about the cooling trend that had been observed for the
previous quarter-century. After 1940 the temperature, at least in the Northern
Hemisphere, had dropped about one-half degree Fahrenheit -- and more in the
higher latitudes. In 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the
National Science Foundation, stated: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world
temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last
decade." Two years earlier, the board had observed: "Judging from the record of
the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be
drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age." And in 1975 the
National Academy of Sciences stated: "The climates of the earth have always been
changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large
these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do
not know." "

CITE:
WASHINGTON POST MONDAY JULY 7, 2003 Page A17
URL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19892-2003Jul7.html

 

The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
operation?
And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.

 

I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
cities as the ocean rises.

And I am saying that isn't right; I think it is closer to say that
'models' can pull the wool over the eyes of anyone who lacks an
analytical mindset, particularly if they have a fixed bias. But as
they say, enquiring minds want to know; and that greatly reduces the
number and type of models they find acceptable, even if the results
aren't what they hoped they'd be. Most working scientists have at some
time in their career had to sadly abandon at least one pet hypothesis
because it just didn't fit the data well enough; if they can't face
reality to that extent, they don't get very far in the science biz.

Well from that point of view, nothing in science is known. We don't
know that there was a big bang. We don't know that inhaling smoke
causes cancer. We don't know that microorganisms cause disease. We
don't know that the sun is what makes the earth warm in the daytime.
We don't know that gravity will still function next Wednesday. We
don't know that fossils are actual evidence of organisms that lived
long ago, and not just interesting rock formations. But we have good
evidence for all of the above. If you are asking to 'know' that
manmade CO2 causes global warming, of course you're going to be able
to say 'Nope, that's not it yet'.

You'd prefer we limit the CO2 emissions from countries that don't have
much in the way of CO2 emissions? And that they should develop
advanced technology for energy efficiency and low emissions energy
production rather than the US, because that will not lead to a tilt of
the global economy in their direction? And you think that the current
hemmorhage of jobs to the third world isn't based on the salary
differential?

In other words, since that's physically, philosophically, and
conceptually impossible, just do nothing. Do you extend this
philosophy to other spheres of knowledge? We shouldn't act to counter
an epidemic when we have a good idea of what causes it, but just do
nothing until we get 'proof'.

It's not sufficient for the critics to just say 'not proved enough for
me' again and again. The way science works is to establish a priori
what level of evidence you would consider convincing, then do the
tests and see if you can achieve that level of certainty or not. So,
what level of evidence would you consider to be 'proof' of manmade
global warming? Does it involve travelling back in time to take
precise measurements of temperature, CO2, or other physical
parameters? Does it require a secondary earth to be constructed,
identical to this one in all factors except CO2 production so that a
controlled test can be carried out? If so, just say 'Nothing you can
possibly say or do will convince me' and save us all a lot of trouble.
If you do have in mind some sort of evidence which is actually
possible to gather, please let us know.

We've got a damn good model that fits the past century, and pretty
good for previous times. And I haven't seen a model that ignores
manmade CO2 that fits any better, do you have one available? If not, I
am logically required to assume as a working hypothesis that the
current temperature rise is related to manmade CO2 emission. What is
your logic for saying you believe in a different model, of which you
do not know anything at all other than that it does not involve
manmade CO2? Can you demonstrate some sort of decently fitting model
that does not involve manmade CO2? You keep saying that any kind of
model you want can be created to show whatever you want, so please
support your position by showing us the 'no manmade global warming'
model you find reasonable, not to mention convincing, so that we can
compare it to the IPCC model, which I have reproduced for your
convenience on the offchance that you are unfamiliar with it: short
term <http://pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/climate.jpg> and long term

You've got it exactly backwards. Energy efficiency is a good thing in
and of itself. Reducing waste will always benefit the economy in the
long run, the only reason it isn't implemented in all cases is those
'market inefficiencies' we hear about; for instance, homeowners who
don't now have the money to replace their incandescent bulbs with
fluorescents aren't likely to get bank loans to do so, despite the
fact that the investment cost will be recouped within a few years from
lower electric bills, although from the standpoint of pure economics
the homeowner would come out ahead financially, enough to pay enough
interest on the loan to make it financially advantageous for the bank.
Similarly, getting off the fossil fuel bandwagon is going to be
absolutely necessary in the long run, and the sooner we start to do so
the less of a shock to the economy it will be; again, the reason we
don't do so is those 'market inefficiencies' that make short-term
profits more important than long-term survival in a company's
planning.
Whereas the consequences to the economy of allowing global warming to
proceed if we can indeed do something about it will be just plain
destruction and devastation, with no investment potential and no
payback.

 

The former is done by somebody who is trying not to do something, and
the latter is somebody's imagination. Niether is particularly
inspiring.

 

I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.

 

Err, actually, it is. Very well-known. It has a Position on the
matter, though.

 

For that matter the fire raids in Tokyo destroyed more property and
killed more people than the nuclear attacks.

However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
magnitude of what they did.

Ed

 

It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish
it were that simple.
The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being used to
develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away.
What is constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil
fuels, with no actual replacement technologies available.
Obviously, this will cause a major change in almost every aspect of
our lifestyles.

No, it *is* right.
All you need to do is look atr recent history.
Remember the claim of an impending 'ice age' 30 years ago? It was
modeled.
Remember the holes in the ozone layer? Models showed quite
convincingly that we would need to change our outdoors habits.
Why were those models wrong?

Exactly.
So rather than disrupt everything, let's make sure we get it right.
The stakes are very high *both* ways.

True.
And it doesn't really make much difference either way, does it? Our
lives won't change if there was, or wasn't.

And you show again that you don't quite understand my objections.
We do know that stopping smoking, for example, results in a better
life for most people.
We also know that taking the steps proposed to stop global warming
will have a very serious, disrupting effect on our lives.
Before we take those steps, and *because the effects will ne so
serious*, we need to be sure those steps (and the resulting
disruption) will actually be profitable.

I'd prefer that, instead of simply shifting the emmissions (to the
great detriment of our country), we stopped to think of the unintended
consequences.
I'm not linking any job shift to pay differences to this in any way;
that's your obfuscation.

I never advocated doing nothing. In fact, I've been saying that we
need to apply more energy to actually finding the cause, rather than
finding *a* possible cause, and proceeding on a very damaging program
to fix that supposed cause, without actually knowing if it will work.
As evidenced by your writing above, you don't seem to understand what
a large part of the supposed fix will do, yet you still want to do it.
What good does simply letting the production of C02 move to other
places on the planet do?

What I want is to make sure we don't take actions that will cause much
harm to our lives, with no reasonable quarantee that it will solve the
problem.
Kyoto is in that category. It simply shifts C02 production around,
hurts the developed countries, and lets under-developed countries
skate. While I'm sure that gives certain groups a warm, fuzzy feeling
(it punishes the rich countries, while rewarding the poor ones), and
has the very real probability of doing little or nothing to solve the
problem.

Again with the models.
Models predicted an ice age 30 years ago.
Models predicted the demise of the ozone layer.
Models say the current warming trend is our fault, when they still
can't say why these exact same trends have happened before we were in
the industrial age.
And, based on those models, we are supposed to radically change our
lifestyles, spending untold billions on programs that have already
been shown to be faulty?

No, and I haven't seen anyone actually produce material evidence that
Bigfoot exists, either. But I don't want to see large parts of the
country set aside as Bigfoot preserves because some people think
Bigfoot exists.

And there's a big problem.
You want to proceed based on the idea that, "we don't have anything
better to proceed on."
What if your coctor said, "We think your problem is based in your
liver. We don't know if it really is, but we do know that it *might
be*, so we want to take your liver out. Sign this waiver and take your
clothes off." Would you?

Holes in the ozone layer.

I don't need to actually make my own model, when I've shown that the
current models being used do not account for earlier warming trends.

Wow! "Energy efficiency is a good thing in and of itself."
Thanks, I was wondering about that.
But that's not what's at stake here, is it?
Have you actually thought about what would happen to the US if, for
example, Kyoto were enacted here? I mean to the country, not jsut the
environment.
We'd have a very major loss of manufacturing jobs, for starters. The
economic upheaval would be tremendous.
This is a little different from just replacing our incandescent light
bulbes with flourescent bulbs. It's more than just saving energy.
It's people. It's people suffering.

Ah: "if we can indeed do something about it..."
There's still that "if" that's the sticking point.
You seem to want to have both: the possibility of staving off global
warming without knowing all the factors that causes it, *AND* the
economic upheaval that goes with doing what's being proposed.
Before we do that, I'd like to have some assurance we don't just get
the latter.

 

I think you're right.
Unintended consequences bite everyone.
The Japanese government didn't understand the ramifications of their
actions before Pearl Harbor, and they didn't understand the
ramifications of their obstinance *after* Pearl Harbor.

 

They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?

 

Why not answer the question, then?
If CAAFE were applied to *all* passenger vehicles (which you seem to
be saying would include light trucks/SUVs), what would the consumers
have bought then?

 

They need to be hit pretty hard.
Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.

 

Then be careful asking for more gas taxes.

You speak as someone who would rather do nothing, because he can't do
everything.

I have.
They are *all* speculation, based more on an agenda (and programming)
than on science.

No.
You are trying very hard to say that CO2 is *only* produced by human
activities, and you (should) know better.
I say "trying" becasue, when you don't actually say it, but only do
you rbest to get that idea across without actually saying it, you can
backpeddle.

 

See prior response.

 

Hypothetical question:

Let's say it's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
(Just like Saddam had WMDs)

Let's say that the local police told you, officially, by certified
letter (return receipt requested, you gotta sign for it, the whole
thing) telling you that htey were going to come search your house,
giving you the date of the search, even asking you to make sure you
were there to help.

Would you be so stupid to let them find the drugs?

That's a rhetorical question. You don't really have to answer.

 

"Hundreds"?
Try less than 20.
It's no wonder your claims are ridiculed: your research sucks.

 

It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<

Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
space available to deploy huge solar collectors.

Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
the fanciful enviros will whine....

 

Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
ended it.

Ed