Get a hybrid?

pearljammer said: Kytiara said: If those people who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming were willing to actually ahve a discussion, I might have more to say, but since anyone who doesn't follow the party line gets castigated, whats the point.  We're unwilling to have discussion?!? I must've imagined have the articles I've read for 4 years debating this very issue. Party line?? Please, stop acting like everyone has an agenda to push with this. Simply because some people may, does not mean we all do. I haven't read anything so arrogant in a discussion on this topic in quite some time.

First, I never said you specifically, but I will not back down from that statement.  People who disagree on AGW are almost immediately castigated and accused either of taking money from big oil or having alterior motives.  The general populace KNOWS that AGW is real, they won't believe or discuss alternatives.

Just look at the opinions above yours.  Claim that AGW may not be real and you get jumped on.

Hey I know you do not want to talk about it, but you should watch this video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BAzSsMIgSKQ

Pearljammer, I'm not trying to argue with you specifically, but go back on that first page and tell me what you see. A few people willing to discuss the possibilities and the rest so sure in their knowledge that they believe that AGW isn't a theory, its a fact. I'm not even going to say I think their all wrong. I reserve my own judgement about what is true until there is more information that can tell us.

It's not like I'm doing this for profit. I don't get anything from oil companies (I could only wish). I own a subcompact with very good gas mileage. I carpool to work. I walk everywhere I can. I rarely travel by airplane. I use energy saving appliances and lightbulbs. I recycle everyting I can (including soft plastics like grocery shopping bags which I have to pay to recycle).

I'm just as worried about the planet as anyone else, but I DO NOT believe there is enough proof to claim AGW is a fact, and people like Al Gore and David Suzuki piss me off because they turn a scientific discussion that might turn into something useful into a fear mongering political mess that convinces the entire bloody planet that they should buy Carbon credits to feel better about driving an SUV or extended cab super duty pickup truck around town.

Take Al Gore for example, since he's the biggest and most outspoken proponent of the AGW theory. He has a mansion that uses more electricity than 20 other families and he says "Its ok that I don't follow what I preach, because I buy carbon credits so really, if you think about it I'm not using any energy at all! My carbon footprint is 0". So, what he's saying is, if you're rich, do whatever the hell you want, and if you're poor, stop producing Co2 because you're personally killing the planet.

famousringo said: Linkzmax said: Game_boy said: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png   So that's just every study ever that sees a sharp rise in temperature correlating with CO2 emissions (which we know have increased dramatically starting 1800? But not you? OK. You're correct that there is a correlation, but how about thestudies that show there is a large lag after temperature rises before CO2 emissions(and CH4, N20, etc.) rise? There is a lot of evidence that temperature is the cause and not the effect of emissions. Note that in this graph the the x-axis represents time further back form the present. That is the right side is further in the past. http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html Here's the explanation for the CO2 lag: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.html "So, CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, Greenhouse Gas forcing was the largest factor in the ultimate change."

 From the very article I linked:

"The work proving the lag was recently explained in Scientific American as well as RealClimate where they also essentially claim that you can easily produce a time machine as long as you want to travel only 800 years - or anything less than 5,000 years - to your past.

See also: CO₂ lag and how alarmists think

I leave it up to you whether you learn just the hard data or also their bizarre interpretation, and whether you will think that the RealClimate people are sane according to this interpretation. I personally don't think so. They would be right if they said that 90% of the time, the temperature and gas concentrations move together, and if you could hide the remaining 10% of the data, you couldn't learn the direction of the causal relationship.

But scientists who don't want to close their eyes can look at these critical 10% of the data, too. The result of such an analysis is that the impact of temperatures on gas concentrations is much stronger than the opposite influences, including the greenhouse effect. This fact can be extracted from the time periods where the trend is changing but because the physical laws themselves don't change, it is very clear that in the remaining periods, it is still true that the influence of temperature on the gases is stronger than the opposite influence. The only way to hide this conclusion is censorship, witch hunts, and burning of heretics at stake. There is no scientific way to deny this clear conclusion from the data."

 

Also, the amount of manmade emissions is miniscule compared to the natural emissions after a natural rise in temperature due to mostly cosmic factors. 

Some people have pointed out a couple of potential solutions to the problem, I'd like to point out a couple policies that are presented as solutions but which are Bad Ideas.

The first is hydrogen as an energy medium. While it may have some useful attributes that are worth continued research, it has a host of issues that make it a less than ideal replacement for fossil fuels. Since it's a medium, not a source, it requires an electric power source to extract the hydrogen in a slightly inefficient process. Most applications of hydrogen would use fuel cells to convert the energy back into electiricity in a very inefficient process. It compares poorly to batteries as a means of storing energy.

This chart illustrates the inefficiency of hydrogen quite well:

In addition to efficiency drawbacks, hydrogen energy distribution would require massive investments in infrastructure. Pipelines, storage tanks and electrolysis facilities would need to be built, while battery storage could simply take advantage of the existing power grid with a small charger.

 

 The other solution which is overhyped is ethanol, particularly when it uses grain. Growing crops to brew ethanol is highly inefficient in terms of energy return on investment. Even though ethanol itself is carbon neutral, the inputs used to grow feedstock is not, and using carbon neutral fuels to grow the feedstock would further harm the efficiency of the process.

Of even greater concern, much of the ethanol development we see now is at the expense of the food supply. A planet with a population that's expected to peak at around 10 billion can't afford to sacrifice good farmland to produce energy. Even the limited work being done on ethanol fuel today has caused a noticable decrease in food supply and a corresponding rise in prices.

Ethanol may have potential if used to extract energy from waste materials, but it could never be a broad industrial replacement for fossil fuels. 

I just want to quote Kytiara, because these are pretty much my sentiments on the issue:
"I'm just as worried about the planet as anyone else, but I DO NOT believe there is enough proof to claim AGW is a fact, and people like Al Gore and David Suzuki piss me off because they turn a scientific discussion that might turn into something useful into a fear mongering political mess that convinces the entire bloody planet that they should buy Carbon credits to feel better about driving an SUV or extended cab super duty pickup truck around town."

There's "proof" both for and against it, and not enough of either to claim it absolute fact or bunk. We do need to take care of the planet, but not out of fear of some global catastrophe. Instead, it should be because the resources are limited.

A few months ago I saw a series of videos on YouTube by Bob Carter where he gives an (somewhat skeptical) overview of the science behind global warming ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&feature=related

 

To the extent that certain groups are preaching it, it is most definitely fiction.
Although pollution and energy sources are not to be disregarded, we don't need to run around saying "OMG TEH WORLD IS BURNING UP IN 20 YEARS!!11!!1! I'M GONNA GO BUY MAH CARBON CREDITS!!11!"

We need more nuclear power generation. Cheap, clean and efficient. Oh, and Mr. Gore isn't a scientist. He's a washed up has-been politician.

This topic again?
Even if every tree was replaced on the planet it would still take over a generation for the atmosphere to recover. In all honesty it is happening and to tell the truth there is bugger all we can do about it now. The planet has gone through many changes in it's millions of years life cycle to date, this will be just another chapter in earths history - one of which could probably 'reset' life on earth.