Things like the cash for clunkers program should be permanent, not just a one time thing.
No, that's a monumental waste of resources that program. The car is the most recycled thing on the face of the planet, destroying perfectly good ones is stupid.
No, that's a monumental waste of resources that program. The car is the most recycled thing on the face of the planet, destroying perfectly good ones is stupid.
I agree. Also, it made me mad, because I had a genuinely clunkery and inefficient car, (it was an ancient Buick) but since it was 2 miles UNDER the limit, I could not use the program. Then I saw all these news stories about people with a few years old SUVs trading them in for new, slightly more fuel efficient SUVs. I think they should have made the program restrictions much more stringent, and lowered the cap for the fuel usage of the new cars.
The best thing that governments could do, and some are, is give incentives to "go green".
I completely agree with you. The best way to get people to do things is not to lecture them that it "is the right thing to do," but rather to bribe them. The country is kind of like a little kid that is stubborn when instructed to do chores, but can be bought off with financial lollipops. However, that means that we should make it up by putting a tax on the people who do the opposite. SUV tax?
Then I saw all these news stories about people with a few years old SUVs trading them in for new, slightly more fuel efficient SUVs. I think they should have made the program restrictions much more stringent, and lowered the cap for the fuel usage of the new cars.
Especially as all cash for clunkers cars had their engines destroyed. I don't like SUVs as daily drivers as much as the next guy, but completely destroying a perfectly good one is just silly. I read a report a while ago that said more energy goes into building a car than it can ever burn in it's lifetime.
Things like the cash for clunkers program should be permanent, not just a one time thing.
No, that's a monumental waste of resources that program. The car is the most recycled thing on the face of the planet, destroying perfectly good ones is stupid.
Ok, I didn't really mean that program in particular. I agree that it was stupidly implemented, but the idea should stay. Destroying old cars = foolish. Getting money for trying to buy a more fuel-efficient car = great!
It sounds like the FRC consensus is that the ends justifies the means. If the science is faulty it should be exposed as faulty. Saying, "I don't care because I like the end results" is just plain wrong.
It sounds like the FRC consensus is that the ends justifies the means. If the science is faulty it should be exposed as faulty. Saying, "I don't care because I like the end results" is just plain wrong.
I didn't say that. I said regardless of the outcome of the debate we'll get some nice benefits from moving technology towards a solution to reducing climate change. Honestly there is still plenty of evidence of global warming and the debate is still in the "is this a natural trend or a man-made one". For example, there are still a lot of people debating the different economic theories out there, we don't know if tax cuts or more government spending will help us out of our mess but if we waited till we had a 100% consensus on the issue we wouldn't get anywhere. Since the benefits of finding more efficient energy sources is apparent we should pursue them on their own merit. Global warming dues provide a incentive for some people to get on board that wouldn't but we are not sure where that debate will go. I'm still confident that one cold winter (in fact it hasn't been that cold, it's been snowy) people seem to forget we really haven't had any below 0 days around here at least.) does not destroy Global warming.
It sounds like the FRC consensus is that the ends justifies the means. If the science is faulty it should be exposed as faulty. Saying, "I don't care because I like the end results" is just plain wrong.
Also, I don't buy that every single global warming scientific discovery, like all those ice core studies that were done, were faulty. Doesn't this concern a single study? All my science friends say that this fracas has to do with people who don't understand the scientific community process. At worst, some scientists fudged some data to make their research look good, which happens sometimes. This is bad, and looked down upon! However, most big projects have to be peer reviewed and the results have to be able to be replicated. I just don't buy that the scientists said "Let's lie!" and all the other scientists went "This must be right! Let's just ignore it!" Scientists go to great lengths to disprove each other all the time. The fact that most reputable earth scientists are in agreement on this issue, with a few dissenting outliers, is indicative of the relative strength of the theory under scientific scrutiny.
It sounds like the FRC consensus is that the ends justifies the means. If the science is faulty it should be exposed as faulty. Saying, "I don't care because I like the end results" is just plain wrong.
Not me, at least. I genuinely want to know more, but I am not going to say it was all bunk just because one scientist starts claiming that some (no numbers disclosed) weather stations are faulty and one other single scientist didn't keep great records. There are so many researchers and facilities that are exploring the Global Warming issue, that I will wait until we hear a consensus about these issues. Moreover, regardless of the global warming issue pollution is a problem and action must be taken to stop it.
Jeez, read Timo's posts again. I trust science, but I will admit that scientists(fixed) are sometimes wrong, sometimes dreadfully so. (Did you know that the plate tectonics model of crust movement only came into vogue around the 50's and 60's, and was laughed off before then?) We should always question our scientific theories in the sake of progress. The problem is, the people on the other side of this argument (you included) typically are moved to this position by political rhetoric, or motivated by external, conflicting interests. The scientists working for the gas companies insisted that lead was not harmful, in the face of mass poisonings and impartial scientific proof of it's toxicity from full decades earlier. We knew lead was bad news back in the twenties, but it was only in the 70's that leaded gasoline was gotten rid of. As a result there remains a ton of atmospheric lead, and the lead content in our bodies is 6 times higher than it was before the advent of tetra-ethyl additives. I will start paying more attention when the global warming deniers start behaving like real scientists, rather then the image of the movement being neo-cons with nothing more than an 8th grade earth science class, bitching about how cold it is this winter. Come back to me, Steve, when you have more scientists on your side, ones that aren't paid by interest groups and oil companies. Come back after you give up the Daily Mail in favor of climate science journals, or at least Scientific American.
I will admit that science is sometimes wrong, sometimes dreadfully so.
Science is never wrong. Scientists are sometimes wrong, sometimes on purpose. Procedures are often wrong. Data is misinterpreted or misrepresented. There are a million myriad failure points in the scientific process, but the process itself can not but lead to practical truth when implemented consistently and impartially.
I will start paying more attention when the global warming deniers start behaving like real scientists, rather then the image of the movement being neo-cons with nothing more than an 8th grade earth science class, bitching about how cold it is this winter. Come back to me, Steve, when you have more scientists on your side, ones that aren't paid by interest groups and oil companies. Come back after you give up the Daily Mail in favor of climate science journals, or at least Scientific American.
I will admit that science is sometimes wrong, sometimes dreadfully so.
Science is never wrong. Scientists are sometimes wrong, sometimes on purpose. Procedures are often wrong. Data is misinterpreted or misrepresented. There are a million myriad failure points in the scientific process, but the process itself can not but lead to practical truth when implemented consistently and impartially.
This. Science sometimes leads us to an incorrect conclusion. That doesn't mean Science itself is wrong; it means we missed something or interpreted something wrong.
Also...saying one faulty study disproves Global Warming is bad science. Isn't that like saying because one heavy smoker didn't die from respiratory complications, smoking has no negative health effects? One study that doesn't fit in with a whole bunch of other evidence does not necessarily render all the other evidence invalid.
Science is never wrong. Scientists are sometimes wrong, sometimes on purpose. Procedures are often wrong. Data is misinterpreted or misrepresented. There are a million myriad failure points in the scientific process, but the process itself can not but lead to practical truth when implemented consistently and impartially.
As , yes. As intermediate steps, we get things like Newton's gravity vs Einstein's.
I'd like to point out first that you didn't tell me what proposition you are asking for evidence for, so that is a very open-ended question.
The average annual temperature has been rising. That isn't disputed by any credible scientific body, as far as I have seen. This is the fact that the crazy people are trying to argue with. This is the argument I have an issue with: Glen Beck (for example) saying that global warming isn't happening because "it's colder this year!" They would probably say that because we still have winter, global warming can't be true. "Look, it got colder from June to December! That means it can't be getting warmer!" The NON-crazy people are questioning the contribution of human activity and how much we can actually affect it, not the temperature rise itself. They know how science works.
There is some question as to how much of it is man-made and how much is not. My personal thought is that the two are so intertwined that there is not going to be any effective way of separating them. I don't care how much of it is man-made, and I don't think we have seen any solid evidence that we have done anything but contribute a small portion. I'm an environmentalist, but I'm not super-concerned about averting global warming. Why? Because I think it's past the point where we can "stop" it effectively. What I think is that there are plenty of OTHER compelling interests that support our reduction of fossil fuel consumption and emissions (lowering asthma and respiratory problems, better air quality in general, reduction of reliance on fossil fuels, reduction of waste from fossil fuel processing, etc) that render global warming redundant in the public health and safety argument.
That said, of course we should do anything we can to counteract or preempt harmful effects of the temperature rise. Durr. We should do that whether it is man-made or not. If a giant meteor was hurtling towards Earth, would we decide we shouldn't try to do anything about it because we didn't put it there in the first place? SO DUMB!
but since it was 2 miles UNDER the limit, I could not use the program.
I was confused for minute. I thought you meant that there had to be a minimum amount of miles on the odometer to be eligible. I wondered why you didn't just drive around the block.
As for science, a wise person recognizes what we are certain of, but also admits what we are not certain of. Evolution is real. There is no legitimate debate. But other fields are developing. Astronomy is a good example. It is not uncommon at all to read about observations and discoveries that force us to reexamine our beliefs.
As for global warming, I have said before that I am convinced that our understanding of the entire process is limited. This is an emerging discipline, and I am sure that the scientific process will change our understanding of the process. I'm not saying we are wrong. I'm just saying that we still have a lot to learn.
A monkey knows that the sun is bright. Humans know why it is bright. When it comes to global warming, we are somewhere between monkeys and humans. We are pretty good at observing, but our understanding of the underlying systems is a work in progress.
One obstacle is the difficulty in testing theories. Climate change is a grand and slow process. You can't add CO2 to a tube in the lab, measure the result, and directly correlate the result to a global climate system. Much of the research is incredibly expensive and time consuming. And at a certain level, at this juncture, assumptions must be made. They may be educated assumptions, but there is by definition a level of uncertainty.
We have a lot to learn about the entirety of our universe. Like I said, people should always doubt, always reexamine, always question the world around them to incorporate new facts and information. Global Warming isn't understood 100%, nor is there an easy fix-all green-friendly solution that humans can suddenly enact to make everything all hunky-dory. However, current science seems to be pointing in a certain direction, and rather than sitting there on our hands, we should learn about ways we might be able to lessen it's impact.
but since it was 2 miles UNDER the limit, I could not use the program.
I was confused for minute. I though you meant that there had to be a minimum amount of miles on the odometer to be eligible. I was wondering why you didn't just drive around the block.
That's why units are important.
That said, of course we should do anything we can to counteract or preempt harmful effects of the temperature rise. Durr. We should do that whether it is man-made or not.If a giant meteor was hurtling towards Earth, would we decide we shouldn't try to do anything about it because we didn't put it there in the first place?SO DUMB!
I agree, but the question of how much impact we are having is an important one, because it also tells us how much we can do by changing our behaviour.
What I think is that there are plenty of OTHER compelling interests that support our reduction of fossil fuel consumption and emissions (lowering asthma and respiratory problems, better air quality in general, reduction of reliance on fossil fuels, reduction of waste from fossil fuel processing, etc) that render global warming redundant in the public health and safety argument.
The thing is, that has to be weighed against the economics of the matter.
I've said before that the benefits of reducing our consumption of fossil fuels appear to outweigh the negatives. However, I don't know what the impact would be on the economy. Many impoverished people depend on cheap food and goods to survive. We need to factor this into the equation.
And never underestimate our ability to create technology to get out of a problem. We are far from perfect, but we are resilient.
I'd like to point out first that you didn't tell me what proposition you are asking for evidence for, so that is a very open-ended question.
The average annual temperature has been rising. That isn't disputed by any credible scientific body, as far as I have seen. This is the fact that the crazy people are trying to argue with. This is the argument I have an issue with: Glen Beck (for example) saying that global warming isn't happening because "it's colder this year!" They would probably say that because we still have winter, global warming can't be true. "Look, it got colder from June to December! That means it can't be getting warmer!" The NON-crazy people are questioning the contribution of human activity and how much we can actually affect it, not the temperature rise itself. They know how science works.
So what you actually meant to say is, "I don't know, all the other smart people are saying it's true. And Glenn Beck is stupid." Glenn Beck is mighty stupid, but it doesn't really answer my question as to what are the other proofs of global warming?
Seriously, I only heard 2 sides in this debate. 1) Global warming is a farce because this collection of facts are not true and 2) well there's lots of other things that prove it. I want to understand. Now I know it's very complicated, but there has to be a level where I can get it.
Irrespective of how much of it can be attributed to humans, the Earth is getting hotter.
Assuming that is true, what is your point? Shouldn't we do everything we can to learn about the underlying process, and to define our contribution to that process?
Your argument is akin to an ancient Egyptian saying: "Whether or not Ra is riding through the sky in his chariot, there is a big fiery ball in the sky." I'm glad that more inquisitive minds kept looking into the matter.
Assuming that is true, what is your point? Shouldn't we do everything we can to learn about the underlying process, and to define our contribution to that process?
Your argument is akin to an ancient Egyptian saying: "Whether or not Ra is riding through the sky in his chariot, there is a big fiery ball in the sky." I'm glad that more inquisitive minds kept looking into the matter.
My "argument"? I was responding to gedavids' apparent indecision on global warming. Because of the complexity of the system, we aren't entirely sure about the exact mechanisms by which the Earth is getting hotter. We're not entirely sure how much impact our use of fossil fuels has, though we have a very high level of certainty that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have a large impact. Of course we should work on understanding that process; If you read my previous comment
I agree, but the question of how much impact we are having is an important one, because it also tells us how much we can do by changing our behaviour.
it should have been obvious.
However, while we would like to fully understand the process, that big fiery ball in the sky is a real threat to us. In addition to studying the problem, we need to work on solutions already.
My point was that the only real debate is on the mechanisms of global warming, and the extent and nature of the human impact on it - not on whether or not it is happening.
This article demonstrates my point that we still have much to learn. I'm all for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but the actual impact of this remains to be seen. This does not suggest that, on a fundamental level, the current theories are incorrect. My point is that we are still at this fundamental level. No doubt the science will develop from here.
Just a couple of decades ago we thought the earth was entering into a mini ice age. That ought to show that this field is a developing one. And that's my only gripe. It's fine to say what our current knowledge implies, but to make absolute predictions is absurd. Our understanding of global climate systems isn't sophisticated enough at this point to make absolute predictions (as compared to more general trends).
For example, this is fine: "The current data and research suggest that the north pole will be ice free in the peak of summer by the year..." Not fine: "The north pole will be ice free by the year..."
Just a couple of decades ago we thought the earth was entering into a mini ice age. That ought to show that this field is a developing one. And that's my only gripe. It's fine to say what our current knowledge implies, but to make absolute predictions is absurd. Our understanding of global climate systems isn't sophisticated enough at this point to make absolute predictions (as compared to more general trends).
Just a couple of decades ago we thought the earth was entering into a mini ice age. That ought to show that this field is a developing one. And that's my only gripe.
Science doesn't have to be old to be well-established. Modern plate tectonic theory, for example, was only established in the late 1960's. Would you suggest that plate tectonics is invalid because of this?
It's fine to say what our current knowledge implies, but to make absolute predictions is absurd. Our understanding of global climate systems isn't sophisticated enough at this point to make absolute predictions (as compared to more general trends).
Sure, we obviously don't have the capacity for "absolute predictions"; The chaotic nature of the universe suggests we never will, and the Earth's climate is a very complex system indeed. However, who is it that has been making these "absolute predictions" that you are speaking out against? Show me examples.
However, who is it that has been making these "absolute predictions" that you are speaking out against? Show me examples.
Over the past week, it emerged that the doomsday date found its way into a 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) not from a peer-reviewed study but from an interview published in the New Scientist 10 years ago. That article attributed the prediction to Syed Iqbal Hasnain, a noted Indian glaciologist, who denies he put forth such a date.
Comments
...wait
Moreover, regardless of the global warming issue pollution is a problem and action must be taken to stop it.
Also...saying one faulty study disproves Global Warming is bad science. Isn't that like saying because one heavy smoker didn't die from respiratory complications, smoking has no negative health effects? One study that doesn't fit in with a whole bunch of other evidence does not necessarily render all the other evidence invalid.
The average annual temperature has been rising. That isn't disputed by any credible scientific body, as far as I have seen. This is the fact that the crazy people are trying to argue with. This is the argument I have an issue with: Glen Beck (for example) saying that global warming isn't happening because "it's colder this year!" They would probably say that because we still have winter, global warming can't be true. "Look, it got colder from June to December! That means it can't be getting warmer!" The NON-crazy people are questioning the contribution of human activity and how much we can actually affect it, not the temperature rise itself. They know how science works.
There is some question as to how much of it is man-made and how much is not. My personal thought is that the two are so intertwined that there is not going to be any effective way of separating them. I don't care how much of it is man-made, and I don't think we have seen any solid evidence that we have done anything but contribute a small portion. I'm an environmentalist, but I'm not super-concerned about averting global warming. Why? Because I think it's past the point where we can "stop" it effectively. What I think is that there are plenty of OTHER compelling interests that support our reduction of fossil fuel consumption and emissions (lowering asthma and respiratory problems, better air quality in general, reduction of reliance on fossil fuels, reduction of waste from fossil fuel processing, etc) that render global warming redundant in the public health and safety argument.
That said, of course we should do anything we can to counteract or preempt harmful effects of the temperature rise. Durr. We should do that whether it is man-made or not. If a giant meteor was hurtling towards Earth, would we decide we shouldn't try to do anything about it because we didn't put it there in the first place? SO DUMB!
As for science, a wise person recognizes what we are certain of, but also admits what we are not certain of. Evolution is real. There is no legitimate debate. But other fields are developing. Astronomy is a good example. It is not uncommon at all to read about observations and discoveries that force us to reexamine our beliefs.
As for global warming, I have said before that I am convinced that our understanding of the entire process is limited. This is an emerging discipline, and I am sure that the scientific process will change our understanding of the process. I'm not saying we are wrong. I'm just saying that we still have a lot to learn.
A monkey knows that the sun is bright. Humans know why it is bright. When it comes to global warming, we are somewhere between monkeys and humans. We are pretty good at observing, but our understanding of the underlying systems is a work in progress.
One obstacle is the difficulty in testing theories. Climate change is a grand and slow process. You can't add CO2 to a tube in the lab, measure the result, and directly correlate the result to a global climate system. Much of the research is incredibly expensive and time consuming. And at a certain level, at this juncture, assumptions must be made. They may be educated assumptions, but there is by definition a level of uncertainty.
And never underestimate our ability to create technology to get out of a problem. We are far from perfect, but we are resilient.
Seriously, I only heard 2 sides in this debate. 1) Global warming is a farce because this collection of facts are not true and 2) well there's lots of other things that prove it. I want to understand. Now I know it's very complicated, but there has to be a level where I can get it.
Your argument is akin to an ancient Egyptian saying: "Whether or not Ra is riding through the sky in his chariot, there is a big fiery ball in the sky." I'm glad that more inquisitive minds kept looking into the matter.
However, while we would like to fully understand the process, that big fiery ball in the sky is a real threat to us. In addition to studying the problem, we need to work on solutions already.
Just a couple of decades ago we thought the earth was entering into a mini ice age. That ought to show that this field is a developing one. And that's my only gripe. It's fine to say what our current knowledge implies, but to make absolute predictions is absurd. Our understanding of global climate systems isn't sophisticated enough at this point to make absolute predictions (as compared to more general trends).
For example, this is fine:
"The current data and research suggest that the north pole will be ice free in the peak of summer by the year..."
Not fine:
"The north pole will be ice free by the year..."